Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Reed (Catholic priest)

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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reed (Catholic priest)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Paid article, very little in the way of independent sourcing. No apparent independent assertion of notability.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. I brought this up at WP:COIN along with another article. The paid-editing job can be seen here. Them From Space 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this also appears to be a copyright violation of his page on catholictv.com (funny how the official site has already found and linked to this article!) [1] Also, the coverage mentioned below doesn't seem significant enough for a standalone article. The first is a news story on his position, its more about CatholicTV than Robert Reed. The NPR piece isn't about him at all. Them From Space 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~; the initial formatting was pretty horrible, but it does have multiple independent sources (The Patriot Ledger and NPR). - Fayenatic (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC) -- Now three (Boston Globe). 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I have broken any Wikipedia rules, but I can't find anything that says authors aren't allowed to be paid for their contributions. I consider that I have written a non-biased and non-promotional article - if anyone disagrees then I welcome constructive criticism as to how I can make it better - I am fairly inexperienced with Wikipedia so I confess (Father Reed...confession...gettit?) that I do need some help. It would be a shame to delete my contributions as I do think they add value to Wikipedia. Missylisa153 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I have cleaned up the links - you were right, they were a bit messy, sorry. Is this sufficient to get the deletion tag removed? Missylisa153 (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Based on his being the Director of The CatholicTV Network, I think that is probably sufficient notability (but only weak, because I'm not sure). And a couple of comments: 1) While I generally don't like the idea of paid Wikipedia writing as it can introduce bias, it's not prohibited and a paid article is not automatically biased - it is possible to be paid to write and to do so in an unbiased manner, and I believe the author has attempted to do that. 2) The references are not strong - they are multiple, but as most are from Catholic sources, they're perhaps not really independent. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that they're Catholic sources, but that they're either CatholicTV or Diocese of Boston sources. If other dioceses were reporting on him, that would tend to add notability... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a third independent citation (Boston Globe), with a NPOV angle which I think helps to balance the article. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I had a good look for anything in independent sources (using Google news archive) which might have been less than flattering about the subject, or substance for a "criticisms" or "controversy" section, but found nothing. So even though the initial sources were provided by the payer, I'm satisfied as an experienced NPOV editor that the article is not missing published information that would be necessary to provide a balanced opinion. (Still needs further tidying up, though.) - Fayenatic (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The cited sources demonstrate that the CatholicTV Network is notable, but the incidental mentions of Reed do not demonstrate that he is notable. The article also reads more like a press release than a NPOV bio, which isn't surprising, given that the article was written in breach of WP:COI#Promotional article production on behalf of clients. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient secondary coverage to establish notability. Of the independent sources, the Patriot Ledger article is a routine announcement, and the others are interviewing/quoting him as a representative of Catholic TV. They do not cover the subject himself directly in detail, as specified by WP:GNG. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Having done some work to improve an article which I incorrectly judged should survive, I've made a copy offline and may add some of the material to CatholicTV if (when) this is deleted. Mind you, does that mean that merge and redirect is the correct outcome, to preserve the contribution history? - Fayenatic (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I disagree that the article reads like a press release and would urge others to re-read the article as changes have been made and new references added in the last couple of days. Secondly, to challenge the POV that Father Reed is not notable, here's a discussion I found - I'm not sure if it's enough to use as a reference, but it certainly demonstrates that in Catholic circles, Father Reed is well respected and noted. Also, while I understand that Father Reed is used as a spokesperson for Catholic TV, this goes hand in hand with his role as director for the station. I would think that being such a prominent figure in the company, as well as being a game show, talk show and TV show host, makes him notable. Missylisa153 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS points to what counts as "reliable sources" for Wikipedia; broadsheets and academic coverage are good, forums or blogs are not. Although I tried to help by improving the article, I think that Cassandra73 is applying Wikipedia's policies correctly. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More references added! Missylisa153 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New sources are a press release and schedules for conventions he's spoken at, and a blog for a radio show on The Catholic Channel he appeared on to discuss CatholicTV (it mentions that the hosts of that show also have a show on CatholicTV) - still short of the significant coverage needed, so I'm standing by my previous comment although I wouldn't oppose a merge/redirect to CatholicTV as suggested by Fayenatic. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that's better than nothing, thanks! :) Missylisa153 (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC) PS I've rewritten the copyrighted content to hopefully make it sufficiently different Missylisa153 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete CatholicTV Network is notable per the coverage provided, but the coverage of Mr. Reed independent of that is thin. Even with the improvements, this still reads like a puff piece....Turning water into wine is difficult for mere Wikipedians. Vartanza (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2010 (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.