Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandan Robertson

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. ✗plicit 23:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandan Robertson

[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)

This article fails on several notability counts–two of the four sources are written by the article's subject–and both of the other sources fail to suggest the subject is notable outside of two failed initiatives. The notability banner has stood for over six months. I think its time to pack it in. Pbritti (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would seem that a substantial number of the edits to the page suggest that it is a self-promotional work. Check the more recent IP addresses and biographical information included on previous revisions that do not match sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sexuality and gender, and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an article on his activism that appeared in Rolling Stone in 2021 here; Time has an article from 2015 when he lost his book deal (this source currently appears on the WP article) here; Church Times has a positive review of his book Our Witness here; Publisher's Weekly has a reivew of his book True Inclusion here; Catholic Answers hosted him for a discussion on the topic of homosexuality being sinful here; and those are just some of the obviously notable sources. There are also a myriad of church/religion/etc sources that discuss his work as well. --Kbabej (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not discounting the reliability of CA, but I would be hard pressed to consider that with regards to determining his notability. However, the Rolling Stone article is good, as is the Church Times one. I think that he's on the cusp of the notability standards with those and I'll take care of adding them if a discussion turns up a keep result. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. In the spirit of WP:THREE (an essay), you've already agreed the Rolling Stone and Church Times articles meet the sourcing requirements. As a third, what about the Time article? Time is listed on WP:RSP as a good source. Thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: I concur. I will trim some of the non-RS material. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources identified in this article such as Time, Rolling Stone, Church Times and Publishers weekly so that WP:Basic is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kbabej, enough to show notability, but could do with those sources actually being added. KylieTastic (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2022 (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.