Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jed Brandt (activist)


 * 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. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Jed Brandt (activist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I cannot find any independent verifiable resources which talk about Brandt's notability. (Plenty of references to his published works...) Based on how it was originally written, it seems to be a fluff piece trying to capitalize on Glen Beck's reference to him -- which smells a lot like WP:NOT to me. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There is a joke in here somewhere, but I won't be the one to make it.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just curious as to what you consider an "independent" "verifiable" resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.99.253 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anon, please read WP:V and WP:RS and the accompanying essays and links. It explains it all. But the issue here is not so much sourcing, as it is "notability" as per WP:NOTE. --Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that explains it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.99.253 (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge and Redirect into Brecht Forum The article needs cleanup, but political activists (left and right) do not have a specific notability criteria, and hence general notability WP:NOTE applies solely, and I think this subject meets the standard in his specific context of extra-parliamentarian political activism (in particular, he has been published by reliable third parties, who makes him an author who was attacked in the mainstream media - notability is a line in the sand, and I think this crosses it). There are some issue with sourcing that can be fixed (the subject does show up in google and has been involved in notable efforts as a notable, documented participant in these efforts). Certainly he is propelled to the forefront by Glenn Beck's attacks and I can understand the whiff of WP:NOT Cobaltbluetony feels, because I also get it. But Glenn Beck attacking someone is not pedestrian, and there is reason why the attack happens: this subject is recognized as an influential person (one of the measures of notability) in his melieu, and while notability is not inherited, it is certainly contextual: of all the people who speak of communism in the Bretch Forum (I mean, the Forum is named for a card-carrying commie :D), Beck chose Brandt for a reason. Notability cannot be revoked, so even if Glenn Beck changes his mind, for better or for worse, he has made Jed Brandt wiki-notable. That said, even if my argument is not convincing, and the community feels this is not article-worthy, I offer that rather than deletion, a merger of the web available biographical information and the FoxNews link be included in Bretch Forum as a section, because it would allow to access the information on this particular controversy, which based on the notability of both Glenn Beck and the Brecht Forum, its not a trivial matter as per WP:NOT. There, I did my WP:ARS job for the time being, where is my cookie? :P--Cerejota (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Wikipedia is about more information not less. This has become a very notable subject, since he was given not just a few minutes, but almost an entire show (rant) by Glen Beck, who has a large audience following on Fox. There will be lots of traffic, as a result, looking for an entry about this published activist, who is now in Nepal covering the Communist movement there (which won the elections, btw). So, when people come to look for info, on someone who is now in the public eye, I'd hope Wikipedia will not let down those who come here expecting to find information. Notability for activists as Cerejota points out is rather general per WP:NOTE, and this meets that criteria.76.14.42.191 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above, so Strong Keep. If Gleen Beck is devoting nearly an entire show to him, he is notable. --Postbagboy (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep Brandt's activities and current news-worthyness is notable and relevant enough to constitute an article. While there is too much information there on his life story and as per Cerejota, the article should be cleaned up (rather than deleted). I am also concerned about the frivolity of this call for deletion, which appears to be motivated by personal opposition to Jed Brandt. Hauser (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - if we can get some decent sourcing here from reliable, independent sources. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I see no question of notability. --Mista-X (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Really? Really?? Please, find me two references not referencing Glen Back's piece that establishes his notability.  Please!  And I'll withdraw. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk  18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the article was conceived because Beck says in the famous clip that he couldn't even find a Wikipedia article on Brandt. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - pretty obvious case of WP:ONEEVENT. There is no coverage of this guy prior to the Glenn Beck thing. He is not a known political figure, even within radical left politics. He is just some guy who happened to say things that a TV host could showcase for his own questionable purposes. EvanHarper (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - With regards to Brandt's published writings, speeches, organizing and activism, how is he less notable then people like Joseph Epstein (writer) or P. David Hornik or Bill Whittle or Kathy Shaidle? I can tell you none of these people had half an hour devoted to them on a highly rated national television show (who complained about Brandt's lack of a Wikipedia entry), not to mention Brandt's work on left (and some non-left) publications, in addition to speeches, organizing and activism he has been engaged in. Do a Twitter search for Jed Brandt.  Then try Kathy Shaidle, Bill Whittle, P. David Hornik or Joseph Epstein, all who have been deemed worthy of having articles. Ruy Lopez (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment for one thing, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. For another, some of your examples are clearly not comparable; Epstein is an editor at one major national publication and a frequent contributor to many others. And: a Twitter search? Really? EvanHarper (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment "major national publication"? The largest publication Epstein has printed in has a circulation of 80,664. Time magazine, the 14th largest publication in the US, has a circulation of over 3.3 million.  The 89th largest publication in the US, the New Yorker, has a circulation of over 1 million.  Those are major national publications.  A magazine with a circulation of 80,664 is not a major national publication.  Also you say WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  Are you saying these people (other than Joey "80664" Epstein) are non-notable?  If so I will send them all to AFD and note that you agree they are non-notable.  If you think they are notable, then as I have said, Brandt is more notable than them.Ruy Lopez (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The Twitter search was revealing in that it shows he is all over the blogsphere now, being blogged and talked about online by a significant array of bloggers. Given that Glenn Beck shined his spotlight all over this guy, his notablity has skyrocketed, and continues to grow, a snowballing effect that Wikipedia is part of. Ignoring this is a bit delusional. Once the bell is rung, it cant be unrung, the guy is notable enough for mention on Wikipedia. Otherwise, everyone is going to be talking about him except Wikipedia. Remember, this is not just some fringe news coverage, this is Glen Beck, we are talking about, mainstream number one rated in terms of viewers, and it was not a short mention, either. This is a no brainer, KEEP. 76.14.42.191 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Blogo-buzz has little to do with WP:NOTABILITY, and Glenn Beck is practically the definition of "fringe news coverage." Things do not become notable just because a pundit talks about them; again, see WP:ONEEVENT. EvanHarper (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Glenn's views might be extreme and fringe (teabaggers), but his show is a highly rated in terms of how large his viewing audience is, and this is mainstream Fox news, not some little cable station. EVERYONE with a TV basically just got Jed Brant beamed into their living room and consciousness. I might be exaggerating a bit, but not by much. I just noticed that this has entered into the “Top in all topics” list on Digg.com:http://digg.com/politics/Glenn_Beck_claims_progressivism_leads_to_Nazism_Oh_really It’s interesting to see this talked about so much now outside of this converstation. Here’s the story that digg links to with video http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/glenn-beck-claims-progressivism-lead76.14.42.191 (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)\
 * Comment Not sure if anyone else has followed Glenn Beck's show, but he did it again. Yes, again, he ran a show on Jed Brandt, doing some typical MacCarthyist anti-communism, scare story. Anyway, now its not just a 'one time event," since Glenn Beck is attacking Jed Brandt TWICE. I also notice more blogs repeating it, as is usual in the right-wing echo chamber.76.14.42.191 (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentMake that three times now. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4060298/americas-flirtation-with-extremes/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.076972:b31271496:z6 and  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587789,00.html. They both play and discuss Jed Brandt.76.14.42.191 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin - There is an argument to be made around WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies here, but I am of the view that it is misapplied in this case. Having been in many AfDs and DRs etc (hell, one almost got me blocked for 24 hours! - and am a veteran of Epic ArbComs and never got blocks from that, so try to make the mental picture ;), I can say without a doubt the community's intent in supporting the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is based on the intent of trying to WP:POINT because someone is hurt that their article was baleted, or cannot tolerate the existence of that article that was kept - that is, to keep AfD trolls at bay from arguing endlessly that *their article* got deleted or *that article* got kept. In this particular discussion, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't apply because the comparison is one gauging current community consensus around what is notable and what isn't, which can only be reasonably done by looking at previous consensus. There is no attempt, that that I can tell to be pointy. Quite the contrary, a reasoned argument was made for deletion and has been followed by reasoned arguments for keeping. Regardless of outcome, I ask the closing admin to concentrate on the cardinal point of notability keeping in mind the following:


 * Notability is not a hierarchy, it is a line in the sand - you are either notable enough for an article or you aren't. Certainly before the Glenn Beck segment(s) this threshold was not met. The question is if these segments changed that. Ultimately, this is the most important aspect and the pivot for a decision for or against deletion.
 * Notability is not the same as notoriety; one must avoid WP:IDONTKNOWIT - In general BLPs are for people who are notable in their field of endeavor, which can be as mainstream as national political leaders, as obscure as particle physicists, as scary as serial killers, as pedestrian as an elected official, as crazy as a conspiracy theorist etc. It is not a measure of how well known a person is to global society, but of giving readers a wide view of the people in a given field, for which they are known for. L. Ron Hubbard is notable for being a sci-fi writer and a founder of a religion - that he also was a musician is not a measure of notability for him. In this case, I argued that the field is extra-parliamentarian political activism, specifically the (self-identified) communist left. So we have to determine if Jed Brandt is actually notable in that field or not. To try to measure this article by any other yardstick would be to not base oneself in what notability has been generally been seen as.
 * Notability is not a subjective criteria - notability can be verified, by reliable sources and by supporting (primary, tertiary or secondary) sources that are not reliable.
 * A good measure of notability is if the given article can be linked to other articles that already exist - that is, it is not going to be an orphan and will add important information to the linked topics.

I already made an argument to keep or merge, so I am not revisiting it, but the discussion seems to have lost some focus on what is meant when we say notability in wikipedia.--Cerejota (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is the fourth show on Glenn Beck where he mentions Jed Brandt: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4066227/workers-of-the-world-unite Show me someone else who is on Glenn Becks four times, and I bet that person has a wikipedia entry.76.14.42.191 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not see the notability here. Cerejota's reasoning is coherent but does not, in this specific case, convince me. Someone else is going to have to write about the subject before WP:N is met. And even if being mentioned by Beck would make someone notable, we have a fundamental problem here: no other sources mention him or give any detail, except for his own website--so the only two possible sources would be Beck and subject, and neither are reliable sources, and you'd be left with a stub that would look very much like that of a fictional character written in in-universe terms. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Was not notable prior to the Glenn Beck shows, so notability stemming from the few shows is WP:ONEEVENT.-- Pink Bull  04:30, 9 March 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.