Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brother Jed

:{{la|Brother Jed}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Brother Jed}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Brother Jed}})

Although this person is fairly well-known I am proposing the article on him for deletion as being unsuitable for WP. The main sources cited are college newspapers. Are these reliable sources? Maybe for some things. But I don't think they should be considered for a biography on a living person when much of the coverage is about negative things. I also don't think he is all that important we need an article on him. Jaque Hammer (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

:I don't see the reason for an AfD here. The bulk of the college newspaper cites seem to be used to back up fairly uncontroversial things about the style and content of Jed's act, and I don't know of any WP policy that makes campus papers untrustworthy sources. I'd also disagree about him not rising to the WP notability threshhold, if only on the basis of the size and extent of his audience in the several decades he's been performing (though he's had plenty of media coverage too, including an NPR "All Things Considered" profile). --— (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

::I did notice the NPR link. That almost made me decide not to nominate it. I know that a very good case can be made to keep the article. However what I am seeing is a person who goes from campus to campus making wildly "politically incorrect" outdoor public talks. College journalism students, needing something to report on, write stories for their papers. Please consider that they are thinking of their professors, their grades, and their reputations. I think this could raise problems, not at all that they are bad reporters, when covering someone whose opinions are so far from the campus mainstream. So all-in-all I looked at the subject's slight importance in society at large, possible problems with WP's policies about coverage of living persons, and the possible weakness of campus newspaper reporting and decided to suggest deleting the article as the best thing for WP. Of course I know that some people will disagree. Jaque Hammer (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Not our job to disappear articles on people we find unpleasant (as I have found Jed for 30 years). He is a public figure, and campus newspapers are WP:RS for campus events. No case for deletion. DavidOaks (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

::::WP:I don't like it is also not a reason to keep, as well as not being a reason to delete. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep as the subject appears to be notable and the article is well referenced. If particular, negative, unreferenced claims about Brother Jed need to be deleted then be bold. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 01:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak delete: the majority of the sourcing is to the subject's autobiography (excessively so, to my mind -- in fact the lede & biography section are both entirely referenced to his autobiography) and to student newspapers (sources of, at best, uneven quality). Remaining sources include a youtube video and an interview on The Colbert Report (a somewhat hyperbolic comedy news show). This would seem to be borderline sourcing for a WP:BLP. Is a transcript available of the NPR piece? The only version I can find is behind [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-53069277.html this paywall]. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Everyone in America has freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There are thousands of people talking about their beliefs every day. There is nothing remarkable or important about this guy. As the nominator said it is only because he does his thing on college campuses that he is even noticed. It is possible for WP to have an article on him but we are not required to have one on everyone that gets written up in local, or in this case college, newspapers. -Steve Dufour (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The main source of the article, his autobiography, is self-published. That plus multiple coverage in college newspapers doesn't seem to add up to reliable coverage to establish notability, however colorful a character he may be. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep meets all requirements of WP:Notability, which is really what we are deciding here. It doesn't matter if WE think he is notable, unique or interesting. The important thing is that many third-party reliable sources, including two with a national scope (Colbert and NPR), have made him the primary subject of published work. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

:*As an explictly comedic/parody source, Colbert is of questionable reliability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep: Student publications alone are not enough, but the NPR story and the Colbert coverage (even if the latter is not a reliable source) indicates that this person is of more than local interest.  Sandstein  07:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

: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.