Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Chaney Jr.

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 keep. Nakon 04:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Chaney Jr.

Wayne Chaney Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I do not beleive a pastor can be notable for being pastor of his church when his church Antioch Church of Long Beach is not notable enough to have its own article. It is claimed to be the next megachurch, but no evidence seems to be offered for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, if he is notable, it will be established by press coverage generated by TV show.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• probable keep It looks as though this just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is it possible that the black church is under represented among Wikipedia editors? In all events, this Pastor is pretty well known, in the television section, I added interviews and articles profiling Cheney and his wife, Myesha - they seem to operate Antioch as a team. The church probable is notable enough to have a page of its own. Certainly, other sections of this article can be sourced. (Wayne Cheney is a somewhat common name, so searches need ot be refined) But this sails past
  WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• delete
  Spartan 123 01:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Trimmed some of the hype in lede. Notability lies in coverage of pastorate, and, especially, in coverage of that television show and controversies it generated: propriety of Chaney & other preachers showboating like celebrities showcasing their affluent lifestyle; propriety of Chaney & wife talking about joy of married sex. Added a bit of substantive coverage; there is lots more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added articles with basic stuff: church, where schooled, an award he got. Article still needs expansion on controversies surrounding TV show.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Post, several primarily about Chaney, others with substantive discussion of him, merest mention in NYTimes article about successful TV series he is featured in, but I threw it in for good measure. iVotes to delete were made before article was sourced but, like nom, without using simple search techniques like typing "Wayne Chaney" + Antioch into a news google search. Granted, it was merest, self-sourced hype when it was nominated. But AFD is supposed to be for articles about non-notable topics. Not about bad articles. This should have been tagged, not brought to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - It seems that the Oxygen network TV tie-in has generated sufficient sourcing to get this subject past GNG, based on the footnotes showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sources are (now?) there and subject seems notable. ~EdGl! 23:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is now sourced it seems. Kharkiv07^Talk 21:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am the OP, but the article now seems ok to me, and now meets my concerns about notability. ubiquity (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Preachers of L.A., on which he is one of six participants. It's the only thing that gives him any shot at notability at all. Aside from that, he is simply the pastor of a medium-sized church, like thousands of others. Apologies to those who have tried to improve the article, but the references are simply not impressive. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2015 (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.