Talk:Jed Brandt

Invalid deletion request. Page was deleted after its sources were improved.
Article was renominated for deletion after the article was revised and citations were added. Why? No additional information was provided in the talk section. The old original request for deletion cited that Jed Brandt was not a notable person because this person had only one notable mention (around an appearance on the Glenn Beck show). This television reference was also deleted with no reason given. I pointed out Jed Brandt's continuation as a notable person because of his links to the Occupy Wall Street movement, including as the founder of its newspaper, the Occupied Wall Street Journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.236.246 (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Cerejota provided an explanation for page deletion:
PROD removed without explanation. I am reversing my previous position on this BLP's notability. The only barely notable item here is the OWSJ editorship, which can be merged into Occupied Wall Street Journal itself. Most of the biographical information sourced is from the personal website of the subject - in the end, there is no sufficient third party coverage of the subject itself, but rather of peripheral events the subject has been involved with. Cerejota (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Response:
PROD was removed because citations were added. Article now no longer relies on any source material from the website of the subject (which seems to not actually exist anymore). The combined references here do amount to a notable person. PROD is invalid. Cerejota, please respond to these elements. It seems you are ignoring the discussion.


 * This was not redirected as per PROD. It was redirected as per AfD. The PROD was indeed removed, and its removal questioned in AfD as per process, the AfD participants agreed it should be redirected. The issue of the PROD is irrelevant. --Cerejota (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, as per the discussion, it should have been deleted, but the closing admin felt the argument that a redirect was preferable was compelling, and policy allows this. So this was not my personal call, but a collective call of the wikipedia community. --Cerejota (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)