Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Jon Salisbury

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keep alternate version and move to Brett Salisbury /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Jon Salisbury

[edit]
Brett Jon Salisbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about possibly barely notable college athlete that is pure puffery and spam about his current business. While citations are provided, they do not resolve as useful references Esprqii (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are absolute and are not puffery. The Consumer Digest Report proves it. Also the guy was Ex Communicated from LDS church. How is this puffery? The references are from every college attended. He was also the starting quarterback the university of oregon which qualifies him as a starting quarterback. The person also has a book that is published for heath and wellness. Do not remove. KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Wayne State links are broken. The consumer digest report website looks like a promo website for the book. The only link that works shows he was the 72nd best high school athlete from North San Diego County. Looks like he played, or maybe even started, a game or two for the Ducks in 1991 before Danny O'Neil took over and Salisbury transferred. All the business about his NFL Europe career and modeling career are completely uncited. This article has been created and deleted before. --Esprqii (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Salisbury. --Esprqii (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Wayne State links are no longer broken. The consumer digest report has been around since 1971. Don Clayton is a Editor in Chief and is a Berekely graduate with no agenda. Salisbury was an excommunicated BYU mormon who started 5 games for the Oregon Ducks. He was hurt and transferred at the end of the year to Wayne state college where holds 10 Divison II NCAA records. He played in the same league as Kevin Craft plays in now. If you google brett salisbury the pics of him in GQ are solidified. When Esprqii explains that Salisbury only started 1 or 2 games is not true as proven with the new links below. It also states that salisbury EFAF is an affiliate of NFL europe. Article doesn't state he played in NFL europe. The facts that salisbury started 5 games for the oregon ducks and he is an author of the transform diet which finished 6th last year with publishing company indeed qualifies him as notable. The reason as I check salisbury was deleted was the fact that nobody proved he was a football player in college and his book was still not published at the time. Both of which now are proven. I have been a season ducks fan for over 30 years. Salisbury was hyped up to be the next NFL great. He didn't make as we had all hoped at oregon but he did start the last five games after a ruptured hernia. but he did start five games. Thank you again all links below work are based on facts. OregonDucksFan57 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)OregonDucksFan57[reply]
Reply: You say that the Consumer Digest Report has been around since 1971, but there is no evidence of that. Certainly in that time, the website has not hired an editor, and suspiciously, of the "top 10 diet books of 2011" the first 9 receive brief reviews and #1 gets a glowing endorsement, and the fewest typos. Not only that but book #2 tells you that you should really read book #1. I can't find anything to establish that Consumer Digest Report is what you say it is. Moreover, Salisbury started just one game for the Ducks and didn't do such a hot job. He did play in five games though. He may well be notable enough for Wikipedia as a football player, but the article as written seems as if it were written to promote his book, much like the Consumer Digest Report website. --Esprqii (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whois shows that consumerdigestreport.com is registered to hitfarm.com and provides no contact info. hitfarm.com looks like a spam or seo domain provider. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only can say what I read. Under Better Business Bureau the consumer digest report has been around since 1971. It may have been a publication like all others as a newspaper. I read the consumer digest report. Number one should get a glowing review should it not? However this isnt the concern either. Salisbury Did for a fact start against UCLA, Cal Berkely, Oregon State, New Mexico State and came in off the bench against USC to do a good job. Book finished number 6 and number 1 diet book as stated. Again, the fact that he has a published book and is a notable figure as a quarterback in college you have to keep. I would ask you to help in this cause. I don't find anywhere that promotes the book, only an opinion of what other people believe. I like that we both can help make wikipedia stronger. I think we have solved this and I would ask you to remove from delete as you admitted and see that he is notable based on your own admission that he is a start collegiate player at all levels. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonDucksFan57 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I see an error Esprqil. I am just stating the facts. The article you refer to salisbury's only start was an article written before the UCLA game. This is the second game where salisbury starts against Tommy Madox at UCLA. He still had 3 games after this article where he starts. You must read the entire artice to keep all facts straight. Again Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonDucksFan57 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing from speedy deletion Esprqil. I believe that is fair and truly just. A lot of time has been spent on this guy as I have now seen from the past. I hope you now can make a case that he is notable. I will try myself now to re write from an unbiased source. I look and read the article and it is very unbiased. I again appreciate you bringing this to light and will make us all a better source finder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonDucksFan57 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks like he started three games in 1991: Cal, UCLA, and Oregon State, and then left for Division II. Oh, and it wasn't me who removed it from speedy deletion. I think this is the right process and we need to let others weigh in. While I have written many articles about college football players, I have never tried to pump them up like this article, which looks more like someone trying to sell his book. Really, stuff like having a .408 batting average in high school and being the 72nd best high school athlete in San Diego doesn't establish notability, nor, sadly, does the Helsinki Giants career. Minor league NFL teams don't cut it to establish notability. That's not to say they couldn't be in the article, but so far, the best claim to fame is the Oregon and Wayne State career. I'd refocus the article on that. Convert the external links in the article to actual citations so we know what is being cited. Tone down the high school batting average (uncited) and the modeling career (uncited). Why not mention that he is the brother of Sean Salisbury? Find another citation for why the book is so great. It seems much more like someone trying to push his own book than a neutral, encyclopedic article.
Let's see what others say. --Esprqii (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes complete sense. Thank you. On just a side note. The Internatally acclaimed Radio Talk show host Sallie Felton is a great source that proves all these sources. Look into Sean Salisbury, his brother. Where are the sources that cite his batting average, etc? I found all the sources on google under news with a filter that takes off time restraints. Over 7000 of those, including his batting average and entire college career. What's even more interesting is that Kevin Craft was coached by Brett as a youngster which Craft now plays in the same league as Salisbury did years ago. I guess as we dig further there is a paper trail that leads to notable. Again, Thank you for the advice, I will do my best to research and add. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:ATHLETE. Only sources about athletic career cited in article are trivial mentions of stats. External links section is out of control and borders on advertising. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC) see below[reply]
    • Keep The sources are not trivial. They needed to be stated indepth due to Esprqli wanting to see the results. If you look at the external links now, half the sources are about modeling career and transform diet book. The article written states salisbury was excommunicated and his play at oregon was "less than par" I find it hard to believe this is advertising. It infact humiliates Salisbury and how why he wrote the health and wellness book. His division II stats are still untouched in Division II play. OregonDucksFan57 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)OregonDucksFan57 — OregonDucksFan57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Reply Please read WP:Athlete and WP:RS. Per WP:Athlete for college athletes, the minimum standard here is "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." A single 300 word article in a local paper doesn't count. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the ambush? why not correct the wikipedia notable person and make it clean? Now that we know who Salisbury is, take the external links and use the sources to clean it up? The wikipedia experts can easily help re write this if needs be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the sources meet reliable sourcing guidelines that also establish notability. Since the subject is not notable, no need to bother to clean up. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am laughing outloud. How is the person not notable? That is funny. Started as a division I quarterback, is a published author who's book was number 6 last year, and was a top male model with over 50 radio shows last year alone. I suppose his brother Sean is not notable either? LOL 65.160.209.194 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)The Hot Spot[reply]

Question, How is Kevin Craft any more notable? Seriously? I think you pick and choose your battles. a little help Esprqii? You even now admit that Salisbury is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and somebody please re-write this thing! I hate to break it to the naysayers, but this subject is obviously notable for the widespread coverage achieved from the book. That said, in my opinion his participation and coverage from being an NCAA athlete would probably be enough to meet the general notability guideline. There is the manner of the style of the article--it's poorly written and is more of an advertisment than anything else. If that is not promptly changed, then we'll need to delete it or blank it or something until it can be re-tooled to be an effective and appropriate article. But the article itself needs to stay--the content just needs re-worked.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: How does this article meet wikipedia's college athlete criteria? According to that page the lowest standard for a college athlete is "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team" and I'm just not seeing that sort of coverage here. As for the General Notability regarding the book, the only coverage has been on radio shows which are themselves non-notable (which is kinda how I see the definition of a reliable source, the source for notability itself should be notable) and a website that my technical analysis shows to be advertisement, not a reliable 3rd party source (consumerdigestreport.com). I'm not trying to be critical, I'm relatively new to AfD (and wikipedia) and trying to learn. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content was reworked. I believe it flows better and now sounds unbiased. 65.160.209.194 (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Wife of Oregon Ducks Fan 57 (My husband is now 58 but has trouble seeing) Directed to Salisbystars: 1. Her STARTED 5 games in the pac-10, played a tremendous game against University of Southern California On ESPN. Was being touted after game as a possible heisman candidate. He played against UCLA on ABC nationally televised game that he almost pulled out at end of game. Again, touted highly. He played the last games of the season very mediocore as did Kevin Craft who you still have up on wikipedia? Why? and no problems with his performance? Craft maybe the worse Junior College all american quarterback to start at UCLA. Salisbury was the national passing champion, 1st team all american at 2 different colleges. He was nominated for the Harlon Hill and took runner up. Harlon hill is division II verison of the heisman trophy. Still holds 10 NCAA records including 377 yards per game. Now the book. The book finished last year number 6 on the bestseller list. This is listed in the links as you will see. Again last year, the book FINISHED 6TH ON THE BEST SELLER LIST! Forget consumer digest report, the guy has a published book that was a best seller and is project to go number one this year with the revision. Radio or shows or not, it finished number 6!! you can't deny that.[reply] 

Why are you after this guy so bad? The modeling career...He is a top male model in the World. Modelwatch.com listed him as the top 50 models in the 90's. You can see and read that on both radio shows where they pull information from their resources.

He has played in two movies as an actor. He is one of only 6 authors to ever come out with a line of powder, bars etc in the World after writing a book. From football to being an author for health a wellness he is more than notable. By the way, his brother happens to be Sean Salisbury. So what are you talking about Sailsbystars? Seriously? What is your grudge? Let it go. Again do me a favor and answer me this question. Why is Kevin Craft who had no college career hardly at UCLA even on wikipedia? why? answer me that? Salisbury is considered the top 5 nutritonist according to the October issue of ms. Fitness magazine. This also cannot be denied. Come on Sailsbystars...You need a better angle. You are new and it shows. Top model, author and starting college football player who was an all american a palomar college then at wayne state and almost won harlon hill, then played in same league as craft EFAF. This is a no brainer. Why fight it? As for the Consumer Digest report, it's a subsidary of Consumer Digest so your "3rd party friend" is lost. They have been around since the 1950's. The Consumer Digest Report was started in 1971. Do your homework. Go look at all the college players on wikipedia, it's not even an argument. Let it go. Thanks 65.160.209.194 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)College Football analyst[reply]

And if you go to the discussion page on Kevin Craft read this. He was able to stay on after almost a speedy delete: Here is what was said. Maybe you will learn from this Sailsbystars:

Thank you to Rodhullandemu for speedy decline request. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC) SPEEDY DELETE, KEVIN CRAFT IS NOT A NOTABLE PERSON. REMOVE HIM. IN ONLY HIS SECOND GAME AS A STARTING AT UCLA. THE QUARTERBACK HE MUST BE REMOVED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminate4949 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Good or bad, he is the quarterback for a major division I football team. Notable person is not limited to those who have done good in his field. Ucla90024 (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Kevin Craft was the UCLA Bruins, a major division I school, starting quarterback who had a bad year. There's no reason to delete the article and rewrite history. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk)

Please read the guidelines for reliable sources for wikipedia. Most of your sources don't qualify, and the ones that do have the least information about the subject. Consumerdigestreport.com does not count at all. While there may be a real Consumer Digest Report related to Consumer Digest, that website is not it. WHOIS records clearly indicate it does not belong to the same company. The other quarterbacks that you cite have information obtained from reliable sources acknowledging notability. You say he was covered by ESPN? Prove it!. You say he was touted highly? Prove it! You make a lot of claims about the notability of the subject, but don't have the reliable sources to back it up. That is why I stand by my delete vote. Although I will admit the writing of the article has vastly improved, the sources cited fail to establish notability. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See for example, the two articles in the national newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, on the Kevin Craft article for examples of the types of reliable sources the article needs. [1][2]. Find something similar for this article and it can stay. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with major re-write from reliable sources. Doing the google news search on Brett Salisbury instead of Brett Jon Salisbury returns numerous news articles from the late 80's early 90s.[3] Example [4]. Subject appears to be notable, just the article creator is in need of guidance. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, please help our husband and I rewrite this, you obviously know what it takes. The sources we found were solid, but maybe you have more? We appreciate your help and can you help so this can be taken care of? Thank you again. Bill and Jessie Rackcliff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We re wrote the external links and changed everything we can. Any help would be great as so much effort has been put into this. Please help us! Thank you 65.160.209.194 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)OregonDucksFan57[reply]

Comment If this article is kept, it should be cut down to what can be verified through reliable sources. There appears to be nothing to substantiate his excommunication, Heisman Trophy vote, all-team Europe career for a minor league NFL franchise, tutoring of Kevin Craft, male model superstar 2002 award, "top 10" status of his diet book on any reliable third party reference, etc. This article as it stands is pure puffery--even the alleged excommunication and imperfection written about his Oregon career appears to be designed as "balance" to the article.
Also of concern is the single purpose account which seems determined to shoehorn Salisbury into Wikipedia with the obvious purpose of promoting his book, while stating to be a near-sighted middle-aged couple new to Wikipedia. However, this article is almost identical to the one deleted a year ago but which still lives on in Wikipedia mirror sites available at an Google search. I also note that the editors chose a different name for the article, using the never-used-anywhere-else middle name to attract less attention.
Nonetheless, I have written numerous articles about college football players that have similar notability, so I do believe Salisbury meets WP:ATHLETE. I have written an alternative to the existing article in my user space that I think would be more acceptable to the community, though, I suspect, not to Mr. Salisbury's promoters:
I would be willing to provide the citations to that alternative and post in the main space. --Esprqii (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We just read the proposed alternative article, sounds very good what you wrote. However he finished playing in 1996 not 1995. Secondly he went back to play with the Prague panthers in 2006 nearly 10 years later but basically was used as a coach. As for the promoters of salisbury? we don't care, we just wanted to write just and fair article to someone we have followed. Anything you propose and install now is again greatly appreciated. Thank you
That is fantastic. We have a friend who is an IT gentleman and who understands wikipedia. Please see changes he made. We believe it looks good and meets wikipedia standards, however your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you.65.160.209.194 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)OregonDucksFan57[reply]
Finally we did a google search on the name brett salisbury. The second line item is Brett Salisbury Deleted from Wikipedia. Can you remove that? We are hoping we can put this article to rest! I know you have spent a lot of time on this as has my husband and I. I am 63 and my husband is 58. We are wore out and have not worked this hard in the last 10 years! HA! Thank you again Mr. Esprqii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Mr. Esprqii the information on your new proposed article is that salisbury actual modeled during his playing days. He was not retired just an FYI. We learned this by listening to 4 different radio interviews on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletei've been trying to find references, anything, to support this article for the better part of an hour. the only sources to be found on the internet about this individual are regarding his college football career; and these do not necessarily imply notability of the subject, only confirm that he played college football. the article itself is full of POV commentary about the subject, hardly any of which is supported by the given references. for instance, the section discussing the subjects modeling career claims he "was given the title, male super model in April 2002 by model-max.com", a quick search reveals no supporting evidence. i am not syaing this claim is a lie, but it definetly isn't supported by the references. ultimately, the gist of this bio appears to be to build up the athletic character of the individual to lend credibility to the diet program. "the transform diet" has zero reliable sources, this was the most reliably independent source i could find, it is a review by a website that only accepts submissions for review from independent publishers. in addition, this article was brought to my attention by the main IP editor of the article (presumably the IP of the original author) when the user contested my removal of spam links from the glen high school article by contacting me on my talk page. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
after reading other users reason for "keep", i would like to say i am not dead set on delete. if the college football section can be spruced up with some references and the POV content revamped this would help. but the stuff about the diet program needs to go, this is pure promotional content. the given reference doesn't appear to qualify as a WP:RS, i searched google for "the consumer digest report" and looked through the first 500 links, this page was not in them; although this wikipedia article came up #107. a google news search turns up absoloutly nothing on the topic. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attn wookieInheat, you need to do your homework. Google Brett Salisbury, not Brett Jon Salisbury. "Doing the google news search on Brett Salisbury instead of Brett Jon Salisbury returns numerous news articles from the late 80's early 90s.[5] Example [6]. Subject appears to be notable, just the article creator is in need of guidance."

Also, ::*Proposed alternative Brett Salisbury article

I would be willing to provide the citations to that alternative and post in the main space. --Esprqii (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) [reply]
WookieInHeat, if you read every external link, at bottom of Brett Jon Salisbury the author of the transform diet is substantiated. In fact his book is number 6 on the best seller list for 2010. Please see external links. The only one in question is the consumer digest report. The rest are news articles and even the schools he played for. click each external link and do your homework. The battle from above from every wikipedia went from not notable to Keep. It's because they were typing in Brett Jon Salisbury not Brett Salisbury. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
first, the press release used as a reference for the "january's #6 best seller" claim is a user generated repost of an email received from the website selling the authors book. iuniverse.com is a website for self publishing and selling books, and pr.com is a website for business promotion, primarily via user generated "press releases". the pr.com reference is not a WP:RS, nor does an email received from a self publishing website indicate WP:NOTE. like i said, i am not totally opposed to keeping the article, but the male model and football sections need to be properly referenced (at least somewhat) and wirtten from a NPOV and the self promotion of the diet program needs to be removed completely. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in response to your latest comment on my talk page. no i have not been using the key words "Brett Jon Salisbury" for my google searches. if you view my google links above, all use simply "Brett Salisbury", as you instruct to use. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do us all a favor. This should answer whether the person Brett Jon Salisbury is notable. Go to Kevin Craft prove to all of us how is more notable than Salisbury. Again, Salisbury is a published author, a ex starting quarterback in the pac 10, and a divison II harlon hill finalist. Please explain how Kevin Craft is truly a more notable person. As you look at the discussion of craft, after two games as a quarterback for UCLA he was already on wikipedia as notable. Again two games. He was to be taken off as not credible. However the all time greatest quote came from wikipedia staff, the quote is "Even after crafts two games, he is a quarterback who played in the Pac-10. Whether he played well or not, you still cannot re-write history." Take that in and of itself and you cannot deny Salisbury. Also craft played in the same league after Salisbury in the EFAF. The difference is Salisbury has a book that is for sale on amazon, barnes and noble and borders. Craft has no resume after a college very mediocre if not worse quarterback who was dropped his senior year as the starting quarterback. Salisbury finished the season the starter for the University of Oregon. He also holds 10 NCAA records still held today. Craft doesn't hold one. Make that a viable argument and you have a case. The diet program isnt even mentioned. Here again is the proposed new wikipedia article. All of it fact and shows a complete unbiased. Please read this: ::*Proposed alternative Brett Salisbury article Also check out Esprqii experience covering college athletes. We are all conviced (3 seperate wikipedia contributors that this article is a Keep. Prove this new rewritten article by Esprqii false. We would love to see it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the kevin craft article is irrelevant to my concerns, that article is not being used to promote kevin's current business. again, i am not opposed to keeping the article in regards to football and modeling, they can be works in progress that can be rewritten from a NPOV. however, the promotion of the diet program needs to be removed; this is the only thing preventing me from changing to "keep". WookieInHeat (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and how does the new article which will be used promoting any business? ::*Proposed alternative Brett Salisbury article This is the article which will be used as I mentioned earlier. There is no promotion in this article written by Esprqii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.209.194 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BREAK Hey, let's slow down a bit here... looks to me like the consensus is that the article is to be kept, at least at this point. Of course that could change through discussion, etc... but what we're leaning toward is a consensus of change/re-write and keep. These are all editing or content issues and not deletion issues. I propose that we keep this under WP:SNOW and focus on making the content better and transfer the remainder of this discussion to the article talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment think this got lost in the long list of comments, just wanted to reiterate that i believe the "transform diet" should be entirely removed from the article. the press release used as a reference for the "january's #6 best seller" claim is a user generated repost of an email received from the website selling the authors book. iuniverse.com is a website for self publishing and selling books, and pr.com is a website for business promotion, primarily via user generated "press releases". the pr.com reference is not a WP:RS, nor does an email received from a self publishing website indicate WP:NOTE. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the Transform Diet website is pretty self-serving and totally unreliable, it seems pretty clear that Salisbury did write a real book. I think it's OK to use the website as a reference for that as it establishes his current status. --Esprqii (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if his book was published by a reputable publisher and had an ISBN number, i would agree with you. but seeing as brett is not an "established expert" in the field of dieting, his self-published book fails the notability guidelines and appears to be promotional in nature. in the words of a wiki policy, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books ... are largely not acceptable." now if there was a third party reliable source which discussed brett's self-published book, things might be different. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
further reading about wikipedia policy on the notability of books. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is meant to apply to the notability of books themselves. I agree that the book itself is not notable and therefore is not worthy of its own Wikipedia article. However, in terms of Salisbury's article, it seems to me that it is worth mentioning what he is doing now. If the only thing he had ever done is self-publish some diet and exercise books, then he would not be notable. The general consensus here seems to be that if he is notable, it is due to his college football career, and we have some reliable sources to establish that. If we want to reword it to say something like, "Since his retirement from football, Salisbury has self-published a book about diet and nutrition," cite his website, and leave it at that, that's fine with me. I just think it's useful to include what he is doing now in the article. But this is all stuff we can work on once this AfD closes, if the article is kept/moved. --Esprqii (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Going to have to step in here to give my opinion. 1st a notable self published book is interesting, especially Salisbury's. Take a look at this.

Now in the beginning i noticed almost every expert on here seemed to call this person not notable then switched their mind due to college football. But this "self published book" is making some serious headway and this next thing read it. It's the top 100 Downloaded bestseller list in the united states. From Stephen King to the self published Celestine Prohpecy author WHO BY THE WAY IS A SELF PUBLISHED AUTHOR WHO YOU PUT ON THIS LIST AS NOTABLE so the argument self published authors are not notable is hogwash. Read this: Salisbury's Transform Diet is 52 on the list out of 350,000 books. This is notable. Self published or not, it's in fact more than notable. Show me another author on this list who has done this other than the self published Celestine prophecy author. Here is the list from a 3rd party NO AGENDA except pure statistics on the book. http://www.ebookmall.com/best-sellers/new-releases-ebooks.htm EBookMall has been around since 1999. If you don't know who EBookMall is your a moron. Have you heard of Amazon? Are they notable? LOL Come On People!! You can read about that and how reputable they are. If I read that Salisbury "may have written a book"? Your kidding right? As for his "self serving website? How is that possible? His products are real. Order them on the products tab. He has a REAL protein powder, a real transform bar, and a very real book. As for the book not having a reputable publishing company? It's IUniverse who is owned by Barnes and Noble. In fact is AUTHOR HOUSE and you people have IUniverse the "not notable company" as notable on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUniverse So you really need to keep your facts straight. There are way too many contradictions. From Amy Fisher to Heidi Fleiss are both notable and have published their books through IUniverse the self publishing company. SO not only is IUniverse who you the wikipedia experts put as a NOTABLE company who salisbury is with he now has the 52 best selling book in the world as an E book. I would have to say that's NOTABLE. As for the ISDN number not being their that Wookie reported, again, NOT TRUE. Salisbury is not a self prescribed expert but has a degree in Nutriton and is a Certified Sports Nutritionist. Not sure how that doesn't make him an expert. Again, the facts are not straight from what i read through this entire comment section. CERTIFIED with the AMFNA and GREG LADD is a dun and Bradstreet cetified company since 1995 from New York. Your facts above WOOKIE are not accurate. And look at the abs diet or zone diet or south beach diet websites...ALL SELFSERVING and of course! The transform diet website is nothing more than a place to order the book have 3 paragraphs of the author and buy his products that he created. Do we know who else did this same thing and isnt certifed who you have as notable? Mr. Bill Phillips. Why is he who never did anything but form a company and write a book he notable? Again, you have to keep it consistent and the facts straight. Lastly, the WOOKIE "report" tells us that there is no ISBN number for the Transform Diet? Once again a major blunder. Here it is... *http://www.TransformDiet.com - book is confirmed by publishing company (Iuniverse); ISBN 0-595-51569-X; eBook ISBN 0-595-61947-9;Hardcover ISBN 0-595-50497-3. So please get the facts straight. As for the author not being a model? LOL really? Have you read GQ lately? You might want to try that. He is with Elite in Atlanta call them. They will confirm it. He is also being listed as the top 25 models ever by Vogue. http://www.Top25malemodelsever.com please no more nonsense. This is a so overtalked about. Salisbury by the way is number 15 on the list on Topmale models ever. So is he a self serving self published author or a college football player/ top selling author and top model? Get your facts straight people. Really! and get the proper people to do the proper research.

The top of the page all says not notable then to notable? Your losing crediblity with this community. You need to follow through. As for the PR report that IUniverse put out. His book was 6th for all of last year. That is notable. It's also from IUniverse and you can see who to contact for proof. I also would ask why a guy like Michael Flinn is not on wikipedia. He is the hugo boss model who was in every male model GQ from 1986 to 1992 yet because it was pre world wide web days YOU DONT BELIEVE HE WAS A MODEL? LOL Salisbury fell into the pre internet days with modeling and as did flinn. Take a look at Flynn he needs to be on wikipedia. He is not. UNBELIEVABLE: You don't believe unless you see proof through internet? Ridiculous. Heres some proof about the greatest male model ever not on your wikipedia site because you cant find pics. Try this: This is Model Metro are they not notable enough for you? LOL http://www.malemodelretro.info/2009/04/michael-flinn-mr-hugo-boss.html There are 5 pics all from Hugo Boss campaigns and covers of GQ. But somehow because writers are not writing about Flinn because he now doesnt work in the world wide web days is not notable because of lack of stories? Seriously, please get your facts straight and quit looking for what you consider reputable and proof. How many people can continue to talk about these two people and doubt their credibility. They both are on the cover of GQ and a simple look at Salisbury's website or sally feltons proves this. THANK YOU. But do your homework and quit naysaying. It's getting silly who you find reputable and who isnt. Kevin Craft notable? why? What a joke. And if you say "it doesnt matter about these others like craft or Flinn then why bother caring to even write another article about anyone including Salisbury? Maybe WOOKIE should take Sean Salisbury off the list of notable. Where are his "facts"? Annoying people. Just get this done and move on. The debate is over!! 65.160.210.32 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)City People[reply]

  • Comment I understand the frustration that is brewing here. This AFD should have been closed days ago. Please be patient, I'm sure someone will come along and close this as keep--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a comment that the non-stop promotion of this article from the single purpose anonymous user--supposedly a kindly middle-aged couple--should be taken with a large grain of salt. Even the link above does nothing to provide a reliable source of Salisbury's modeling career. I would like to see the anon user move on from this single-minded focus, read up on the five pillars of Wikipedia and work toward becoming a full-fledged Wikipedia contributor. --Esprqii (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McDonald...THANK YOU. salisbury is a KEEP and Michael Flinn needs to have an article on wikipedia. The AFD?...Close this thing. It's OVERKILL and has been proven. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Alternate version. Jesus tapdancing Christ. Vodello (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seeing as this has turned into a content discussion rather then a deletion discussion, may i suggest that we move the conversation to the article's talk page. it appears there is consensus to keep the alternate version, all we need to decide is if we are going to keep the current title or the alternate title. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are again sorry for coming accross bold. With the help of our grandson he simply corrected not promoted WookieInHeat. Mistakes were made in her comments and were simply corrected. The "grain of salt comment"? We would only say had we not been so adament about the beginning comments of puffery made at the top to a notable person was in fact made and proved by us. I think that deserves a little more credit. Please re-read this entire discussion. We are through contributing and only want to see the just in something. And finally the comment about the top 25 male models ever by Vogue magazine is proof for all 25 models. The list is accurate and complete. How many website or radio interviews does someone need before "proof" is met? That's all we were wondering. Thank you again. We close with no more thoughts about this topic and we put it to rest. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.210.32 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brett_Jon_Salisbury&oldid=1068827875"