Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Chapell

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. There appears to be a rough consensus to delete with only a week keep on the other side. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Chapell

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. I can't find more than trivial mentions in reliable sources; this is about as close as it seems to get. Benny White (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Benny White (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Benny White (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local church pastor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The google search above generates a lot of results at [1], which seems to be an WP:RS. See [2] and [3].-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: True, there are a lot of Christianity Today mentions. CT doesn't appear on WP:RSP (positively or negatively), and I'm not sure it's quite neutral enough to be the main source that establishes Chapell as notable. This article implies he's a religious leader, but the author says "I know Bryan best [out of PCA leaders]", which adds to my neutrality questions.

Thoughts, anyone? Benny White (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen WP:RSP. I just went to the about on the CT website. They have an editorial process. Until it is determined otherwise, I will assume that these professional editors are sufficient to confer WP:RS status.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Still, I'm seeing mainly primary sources (like theology articles written by Chapell, or the aforementioned interview) in these results, while WP:GNG calls for secondary sources for notability. [4] is a bit more secondary but doesn't have much encyclopedic info either. Not yet seeing "significant coverage" from CT. Benny White (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything here to establish notability - no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - no book reviews - Epinoia (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2019 (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.