Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Chand

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. No penalty against future attempts to write an article in Draft space with better sourcing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Chand

Daniel Chand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable evangelist. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Religion, Christianity, United Kingdom, and England. Ploni (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It's a pretty poorly-written article but it passes the notability sourcing requirement (narrowly). Notability outside those constraints seems tepid at best. Would appreciate AfD nominator reporting on search results. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I do not see much notable in the article, just a one-man ministry, something of a kind we regularly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is routine, trivial coverage of a local fight that essentially name drops him and nothing else...it would be weird if a mention like that didn't exist in a local paper. This is a WordPress blog, not a reliable source. This I would say does contribute to notability and this one to a lesser extent since it seems to straddle the line between trivial and significant coverage, but
  WP:NBOXING, though I don't think that's what the article was trying to assert notability for. If there is a religious figure-specific notability guideline I am not familiar with it. - Aoidh (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Aoidh: Typically, "multiple" means at least two. However, I would agree that just two is a low hurdle, especially when notability is difficult to ascertain even within that coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:GNG, but what I meant was two is not enough in this instance, given the quality and scope of coverage in the two sources given. - Aoidh (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Aoidh: Oh good I think we are in agreement here. I am still weakly in favor of keep, but you're right in your stance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2022 (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.