Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reginald Bachus

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. Consensus is sourcing is short and voting to keep on other grounds needs a policy basis to count Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Bachus

[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)

Non notable “senior pastor” who doesn’t satisfy WP:RELPEOPLE, generally WP:RELPEOPLE is used as yardstick as an alternative to WP:GNG, which a before search shows subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The few hits are in primary sources not independent of the pastor. The sources in the article aren’t event about the pastor. They read more like announcements, an example is this Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestina007, Thanks for reviewing the article and for the pointers. I have added more news sources and web references. Regarding the announcements like this one, I thought they are of value coming from government records. Thanks. Innocentwalu (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The announcement I made reference to in my Del rationale is this & not the one you just linked to above which isn’t even sufficient to show he satisfies WP:GNG. Can you show us in the very least WP:THREE reliable sources that proves subject of our discussion does indeed possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy GNG? Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestina007, thanks for your continued guidance. Here are the WP:THREE sources you requested for that I have found from the New York Times, bloomberg law, Atlanta Daily World and NY Times again. Innocentwalu (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked some "references" and they do not support the claims in the article, such as one [12 at the moment] says that he was recognized by the Congress, but the link leads to an article where it says that Bachus was a guest speaker; the other [11] is just a Bachus's own article, which clearly cannot be used; other link [10] is only accessible by subscription, so cannot be verified. Now: [1] link mentions Bachus in passing, not really a good reference; [3] - a House of Rep tribute... and so on... Most importantly fails WP:RELPEOPLE, does not even come close to meet any of the 4 criteria. Kolma8 (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kolma8, Thanks for the feedback. I have done more research and added references from NY Times (2), bloomberg law and others. I'm going to clean up the text in relation to 'recognition'. I based that text on this link and this one that appear to be a congregational record.Innocentwalu (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Innocentwalu, it seems you don’t understand the concept of GNG which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The two sources you just added do not substantiate nor prove the notability of the subject of our discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Innocentwalu, the reliability of resources will not compensate for the lack of notability here. Notability on Wiki is a criterion based concept. Some folks are meet wiki's notability criteria, some don't. Mr. Bachus appears to me as a great honorable man, but that does not mean that he meets the particular criteria to have his own article on wiki.Kolma8 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources provided in the article to pass the general notability guideline. While not all sources cited necessarily point to notability, they are still good sources for content--and enough exist to meet GNG's standards. Further, it seems that the subject also meets the criteria set out in the essay WP:IMPACT and although that's not policy, it is useful for interpretation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, there are literally no three solid reliable sources that all adhere to, or are of any value to WP:GNG. Like stated earlier, subject also doesn’t satisfy any criterion from RELPEOPLE so I do not see any reason why it should be a standalone article. Celestina007 (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom and Kolma8's comments and research with an ATD of userfy: I was ready to jump in on the side of "keep" EXCEPT, I disagree that "There are enough sources". A lack of reliable in-depth and independent sources is evident and the collective total of the sources presented do not contribute enough to advance notability for a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not doubt that the article has enough citations to verify it, but I still have grave doubts as to the subject's notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:IMPACT and also GNG per the third party coverage from Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World. None of these are niche "local only" publications. If you delete this don't be surprised if people say WP is racist.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Meets an Essay? an essay?? When did essays become a yardstick as opposed to policy?? Of which subject of the article doesn’t satisfy, that is, both WP:GNG & WP:RELPEOPLE. The aforementioned sources fall short of WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, when did we start keeping or deleting articles based on what “people” would say? Celestina007 (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World are the three sources which proves it meets GNG. If Wikipedia can't even follow its own rules to keep from deleting a civil rights activist, people might wonder what motivated that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I went back and forth on this one for a while, but was finally convinced to vote Keep by the small improvements made to the article, as well as that there is international coverage in both French and Brazilian Portuguese if News is searched. Nothing very in-depth, but in the end I see no need to delete.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2020 (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.