Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chan Chandler

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 redirect to East Waynesville Baptist Church. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Chandler

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

A classic example of failing WP:BLP1E - the subject is not notable for anything apart from this event. St Anselm (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been nominated as a result of my raising it at the closely related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Waynesville Baptist Church. I would suggest these two articles be considered jointly. If one is kept, the other could well be retained as a redirect to that target page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was a pastor of a church of about 100 members who received some attention for his method of making a stand about how he felt about the moral positions of political candidates. It was clearly one event. It is also not very good coverage, considering that the article states that there was allegedly a recording of what he said. Either what Chandler said was or was not recorded, such poor wording suggests less than notable level coverage. I would also advocate deleting the article on the congregation he lead, unless people can find sources covering that congregation from its organization to dispersal or current functioning, sources in the article do not make it clear it still exists slightly more than 10 years after the incident in question, it might, but we need more sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article doesn't mention the audio recording any more - I removed it since it was not supported by the cited source. St Anselm (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the BLP1E issue? Is there significant coverage outside of that event? St Anselm (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article at East Waynesville Baptist Church. I could see a Weak Keep is there was more evidence on his impact onto the larger evangelical movement as a whole or other situations impacted by his actions. South Nashua (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He used up seven minutes of his 15 minutes of fame. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the church, because he was its pastor for a while. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I have no problem with redirecting. St Anselm (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Redirect to church, but both this and the church article have the feel of COATRACK articles from a Presidential election 12 years ago. I suspect that the church article ought also to be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2016 (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.