Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarel Robinson-Brown (2nd nomination)

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 delete. This has already been draftified once after the first deletion so I have chosen not to do that. I will consider it on request, but I'd like to hear the author agree to submit the reworked draft to a formal AFC review rather than directly move it to mainspace themself. SpinningSpark 16:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarel Robinson-Brown

[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)

WP:BLP1E. All comes from the comments. Previously delete at Afd. scope_creep^Talk 18:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator: I have only recently asked for its undeletion, and have made a number of edits which I think show notability outside of the tweets – notably on his book, which has been referenced separately from the tweet incident. I may have been hasty in putting this in the mainspace; if editors don't think it's ready, I'd appreciate it if we could draftify rather than totally delete the article again (which was the solution given when I requested undeletion in the first place). Thank you. —Bangalamania (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here, as there are three main points of notability: The subjects' book (which has received reviews in Reading Religion here and in Church Times here, plus a discussion with Black History Month UK here); his political comments (such as The Times here, and The Express here); and his position within the church. Also, seeing the comment of the creator of the article, if others view it as not ready for mainspace, I suggest draftifying rather than deleting. Cheers! —Kbabej (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted in Febuary 2021. As far as I can nothing has changed. Daily express is non-RS. I've struck it. The Times is a followup annoucement from the one event. scope_creep^Talk 10:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more content in the "Other work" section, and trimmed the section which talks about the tweets since it was deleted. Here are just a few examples of sources which don't mention the tweet debacle and mention the book in detail: Daybreak with Helen Jones (BBC Radio Merseyside), Bustle, Church Times. Not just notable for one event. (also: Changes since article deletion) —Bangalamania (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Daily Express is not a reliable source. scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is irrelevant; the Express source is not used in the article. –Bangalamania (talk)
Delete per consensus at the first AFD. Still fails WP:BLP1E. Of the sources provided by Kbabej above, only one of them is usable. The Reading Religion source is a quality independent review. However, the Church Times "review" is not independent as it is selling the book and there is no named author. It's essentially a promotional advertisement on a website that makes money off of selling the book. It therefore does not count. Likewise, Bustle is selling the book which means it also lacks independence. With only one quality review, the subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and GNG. The Times article is about the tweet which is the BLP1E event, and The Express is not a usable source on wikipedia. Daybreak with Helen Jones is an interview with the subject and is therefore not independent; which means it can't be used towards proving notability at AFD. There is nothing inherently notable about the positions the subject holds in the church, and there is not enough independent in-depth significant coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument doesn’t make sense. First you’re saying there’s a quality source for the book. But then the Times is obviously notable and covers his public comments. So it can’t be BLP1E by your own assessment, as that’s obviously two different categories of notability. —Kbabej (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were essentially arguing that he is notable for multiple things. An author was the first thing you mentioned. In order to establish notability as an author, we have to have multiple sources covering his work as an author that are independent. The Church Times piece is not notable as they are selling his book and making money off of it. You can't sell a product and simultaneously be an independent source reviewing the product you are selling. GNG requires sources to be independent. We only have one independent ref on his book (we need a minimum of three independent refs to prove notability). So fails WP:NAUTHOR. The second thing you mentioned was his political comments, which in the coverage provided all centers around the whole Captain Tom controversy (including The Times piece). This is BLP1E, because he failed the author test. The third thing you mentioned was his position in the church, but we don't have any independent in depth refs discussing his position so that also provides no notability. Even if we were to combine all of the Captain Tom controversy refs and the one independent review of his book there is still not enough independent significant coverage to pass GNG in my view. Most of the other refs in the article are trivial passing mentions, are about the Captain Tom thing, or lack independence for one reason or another (such as being an interview). So any way you slice it, the subject is not notable based on the current evidence. For me, this a clear case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: move to draft or user space to allow the article to be developed. Not yet suitable for mainspace for reasons laid out above. ––FormalDude talk 20:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he is still a minor cleric with WP:BLP1E coverage together with inherited notability due to tweeting a controversial tweet about a clearly notable person. He is not an academic and does not yet pass WP:NAUTHOR as many of the reviews are not independent, therfore he does not qualify for an article at this stage, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2021 (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.