Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Reyes-Chow

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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Reyes-Chow

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

Non-notable subject; non reliable sources (several dead, fake or misleading) Maineartists (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've gone through the sources (not WP:RS), and the subject of the bio fails inclusion per WP:NBIO. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks notability and the article lacks credible sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The subject has received significant coverage from a newspaper local to his place of birth, and has blogged and written extensively, as well as been interviewed by NPR. The subject themselves outside of those two sources have not received significant coverage in their own right. One can argue per WP:POSITION that the subject should have a stand-alone article, due to him being elected moderator, however, moderator is not the same as say WP:NBISHOP. That said I can see a Redirect for the article to the page about moderators, as is the case with WP:POLOUTCOMES.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the 'News' section in the {{Find sources AFD}}, above, has plenty to substantiate his role, and yes, the moderator of PCUSA is certainly as notable as a run-of-the-mill Roman Catholic bishop. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the subject is an active blogger. But writing content does not make the writer notable necessarily. That said, content which was specifically about the subject of this AfD, I have only found the two I have linked, and the interview was more about something else rather than the subject of this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Moderator of the PCUSA is certainly the equivalent of a bishop: he was the head of a denomination with 1.5 million members. Iain D. Campbell was kept at AfD a month ago on the basis of him being Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, which has only 13,000 members. I also note that his predecessor and successor both have their own articles. St Anselm (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP does not (and should not) grant notability and article inclusion based simply on other subjects; nor should it accept that notability by equalizing one status for another.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs) 05:19, 4 May 2017 (PDT) (UTC)

I must concur with Maineartists (talk · contribs) as the reasoning falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is essentially head of a denomination and therefore notable, as head of any other major organization. The article, however, has unfortunate resemblances to a campaign biography,but I;ve fixed the worst of it. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, DGG, but you've only removed the worst of the promotional material. There is still nothing to demonstrate that he meets WP:N. Does every purported head of a denomination automatically make them noteworthy for a Wikipedia article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a poor article, but having been Moderator of Presbyterian Church (USA), he had a position similar to a bishop. I note from the list article that many (but not all) of the previous moderators have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The essay/WP:SNG of WP:NBISHOP, makes the presumption of significant coverage of a Roman Catholic Bishop. Such an assumption still needs to be verified by reliable sources, even if not available online, in order to meet the base requirements set forth in WP:ANYBIO. I have only found one non-connected reliable source where the subject has received significant coverage, which I linked in my WD/R opinion. The argument being proposed by Peterkingiron falls entirely within AfD reasoning to avoid WP:POSITION. One item of significant coverage from a tertiary reliable source is insufficient IMHO to show notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, even though some editors above appear to misunderstand how WP:BIO works.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2017 (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.