Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Cruise

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. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cruise

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

Autobiographical article. See: WP:NOTFACEBOOK Subject's notability is not well established by sources independent of the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are just enough assertions of notability to where this can't be speedied, but in the end the guy just isn't notable enough for his own entry. After I trimmed down the article and found one actual non-primary and non-merchant source, I just wasn't able to find anything to show notability for him, at least not enough to warrant his own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here is a second reliable secondary source, which means he scrapes in on WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need more than two news articles to show notability. The only time that 1-2 or even 3-4 sources will be enough would be if they were asserting something so overwhelmingly notable (such as him winning a Dove Award) that the article would be kept on that basis alone. The problem here is that the the third source on the article is a WP:PRIMARY source written by Cruise or by someone he paid to write it for him. I'm also somewhat worried about the Baptist Press source, as you'd have to prove that Cruise isn't a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. If he's a part of that group then the source would be considered more of a primary source than anything else. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reliable journalistic coverage seems thin on the ground, basically comprising of the article in Baptist Press which is partically devoted to him. I can't find any relaible reviews of any of his books either. Sionk (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yup, he's affiliated with the SBC. This article remarks that one of Cruise's books was published by "B&H Publishing Group, the trade books division of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention". Since Baptist Press is the official paper of the SBC, that means that any article they write about him would be considered a primary source since it's in their best interest to write about him since they are publishing his product. So we're pretty much left with just one source, which isn't enough for notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- He has a quote in the New York Times, reprinted from the Joelton Journal. Citation: Emily Yellin, "Joelton Journal: An Evangelical Group for Hunters", March 23, 2000. Last couple paragraphs.
- Another source: "BRIEF: Church blesses the annual hunt", Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal (Tupelo, MS), Nov 14, 2009, Quote: "The church will have a 'turkey shoot' Saturday night. Sunday is 'camo day.' This year's guest speaker is Jason Cruise, a Franklin, Tenn., resident and founder of the Outdoor Ministry Network which works with the Tennessee Baptist Convention to teach pastors and others how to reach men who love to hunt and fish." (From database: Newspaper Source Plus, EBSCOHost).
With the The Tennessean it points to some notability as an evangelical Christian sportsman (hunter). These are brief but reliable, a couple more sources I'd vote keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very clearly not notable. Worldcat shows of the two books he wrote, one is in 19 libraries, and the other in 22. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem with the quote at the NYT source is that quotes aren't considered to be something that could show notability since most of the time they're getting quoted on something else and aren't the subject of the article in question. They've always been considered trivial sources for as long as I've been here, as someone can get quoted a hundred times yet never get any actual in-depth coverage. It means that he might be considered a reliable source on Christian/Evengelical hunters, but that's not something that gives notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think he has yet done enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not notable. Ashbeckjonathan 22:34, 25 August 2013 (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.