Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles L. Worley

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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Worley

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

Single event, not a bio. Yworo (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This violates 1 event articles. It also has major issues with undue weight, and not attacking people without proper sources. The very fact that we lack any article on his church also shows this is a horrible case of taking one person's statements and blowing them out of context. Wikipedia is not news, or in this case horrible tabloid, agenda driven news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is very telling that up until just now this article was in a category that explicitly bans the inclusion of biographies of individuals in it. This looks very much like an attack article if I have ever seen one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is a WP:BLP1E WP:COATRACK that is WP:BALASPS violating WP:BLP (better explained by John Pack Lambert). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- So one sexual traditionalist gets the headlines becasue someone notices a homphobic sermon. I completely agree with previous contrinbutors. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2013 (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.