Deletion of Barack Obama and the Enemies Within

Comment: I'd asked at /N about whether or not New American was usable as a source. The result of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134#The_New_American_usable_as_a_RS.3F|that discussion and other discussions (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#The_New_American_reliable_source_and_is_this_appropriate_for_Immigration_Equality_.28organization.29|here, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Use_of_thenewamerican.com|here, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_175#The_New_American_.28John_Birch_Society.5D.29_as_a_source|here) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Disappearing_page|This discussion has stated that New American can only really be used as a source when it comes to the John Birch Society. It can be used to back up basic data and claims by the society, but it can't really be used as a reliable source to show notability for something. I don't have an opinion just yet on the Beck review, but offhand I'd say that this is probably usable for notability purposes but I'd have to research this on RS/N a little bit first
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Neither New American nor a YouTube video pass ; there simply aren't enough reliable sources to pass  or to write a useful article. The implication (as some have made above) that Glenn Beck is so credible that a |self-published YouTube video automatically passes  is silly; reliability requires editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  A talking head who publishes their column in a reputable paper passes ; but when they turn around and put a video on YouTube, that unequivocally fails our criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NBOOK||WP:SPS||WP:RS||WP:RS)