Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Broome

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. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Broome

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Soft Delete, so no issue with recreation, however factors do not appear to have changed substantively since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocco Reed. No indication Broome meets notability requirements as either an entertainer or a religious figure. Star Mississippi 19:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Religion. Star Mississippi 19:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Christianity, California, North Carolina, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Gay porn star to preacher" is an interesting, rather unusual career path. The CBN article now used is a RS, and I have this [1] in Fox News, this NY Post [2] which is a marginal source for entertainment news and this in another christian media [3]. I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a story in a newspaper about him [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The sources cited by Oaktree b seem to provide some proof of notability. The subject is not a politician, for which Fox may be considered a questionable source, and he used to be in the entertainment industry, for which NY Post has, although marginable, reliability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hmmm... The Fox News, New York Post, Christian Post, and The Repository sources presented by Oaktree b appear to be interviews. I also found the subject being interviewed by Washington Times[5] and Evie Magazine[6]. While being interviewed by numerous media outlets is certainly proof of notability, fulfilling GNG cannot rely entirely on primary sources. I found several secondary sources from CBN[7][8], Daily Mirror[9], Mid-Day[10], and Maeil Business Newspaper[11]. These are definitely not the best sources, but the presence of these sources shows the subject person has secondary source coverage, and should also grant a pass for the primary sources to be considered as evidence of notability per WP:IV. So with both the primary and secondary sources presented in this discussion, I believe the subject person should pass GNG. Besides, I am not familiar with the American pornographic industry, so I cannot tell whether XBIZ Awards and AVN Awards are significant awards, but the numerous wins and nominations may also contribute to passing NACTOR or ANYBIO imo. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:36, 22 July 2024 (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.