Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayless Conley


 * 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   no consensus.  kur  ykh   07:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bayless Conley

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Grossly Violates BLP, Any Reliable Sources found only mention him in passing and have no biographical content. Said articles are about a land battle his church is engaged in and not about him in any way, Obvious vanity article, vio of WP:N, Unsourced etc... Nefariousski (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertisement for non-notable pastor Vartanza (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete - Notability not indicated. Broadcasting on television does not establish notability. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, lack of secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is confirmed through Google News searches that turn up coverage in the Los Angeles Times and NPR: . Perhaps an effort should be made to locate references before suggesting that articles get thrown out? Warrah (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? I just tried a google news of "Bayless Conley" and got absolutely nothing .  A regular Google of "Bayless Conley" turns out 5 hits from his own website, his twitter page, and an IMDB page with the only entry being the show of his weekly sermon.  The second page is his facebook, 7 more pages created by him or his church and a youtube video uploaded by his church.  Kudos to Mr. Conley for his ability to self publish and self promote but vigorous self promotion does not equal Notability. Nefariousski (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really! You did Google News for the most recent news search. I did the Google News Archive search, which turned up the coverage in the Los Angeles Times and NPR that your search missed.  Badmouthing Mr. Conley doesn't hide the fact that the article meets WP:RS requirements. Warrah (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and mea culpa regarding the Google News Archive search but considering it's BLP and said sources have nothing to do with Conley himself I still stand strong on WP:N. First LA times is a paragraph blurb mentioning his church trying to buy land and only has one sentance about Conley,  Next LA times is about the Church he preaches at and complaints about zoning laws and arguement about where it's worshippers live by city, and the rest down the page are about the land battle between the church and the city.  None of which make this man any more notable than the spokesperson for a company that is subject of a class action lawsuit.  Take away the land fight articles that have absolutely nothing to do with Conley as a person and you end up with well...  Nothing.  Nefariousski (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore I'd like to apologize if you felt my initial response to your post was snarky or negative, That was not my intent by any means. Even though we seem to disagree on this issue I do appriciate you taking the time to actually do some footwork to look into sources and pointing out my mistake on the Google search. Regarding the article meeting WP:RS All of the sources from the article are selfpub from his own website.  Is there something I'm not understanding regarding a BLP who's sole sources are selfpub from subject of BLP's own website?  Nefariousski (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, Nefariousski. No offense taken. The article needs a rewrite, though.Warrah (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Google news search at the top of the AFD shows this person gets plenty of mention by the Los Angeles Times and other notable newspapers.   D r e a m Focus  13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per sources identified already. here's a brief from 1996 on the church that can help tie into the larger scheme of churches/beliefs they ascribe to. Also Google Scholar pops up a few more including "The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" which Conley was a lead. -- Banj e  b oi   06:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note those articles are about the church and only give passing mention to Conley. None of those articles could be used as sources in a BLP since they don't give any details about Conley himself other than the fact that he's the pastor of a church that had a land use legal case going on.  By the logic of his name showing up in articles not specifically about him in a reliable source I deserve my own BLP article on Wikipedia because I was quoted or mentioned in half a dozen newspaper stories over the past decade...  And I assure you I definately don't meet WP:N  Nefariousski (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its about a pastor who started a Bible study group in his home and is now the leader of 4,500-member congregation, and who has his message broadcast in more than a hundred countries, according to all the news articles. Its not the church getting all the news coverage, its the guy who does all the speaking that is, he the one being broadcast and getting people there.  And most of those articles require a subscription to read more than just a summary, so you don't really know what they say.   D r e a m Focus  20:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of that information is available in any source but his own website which doesn't meet WP:RS. Look at the google archive linked above.  EVERY article is about his church and the land battle witht he city.  None are profiles on him or his story.  Read the titles of the articles and it's pretty obvious that it's his Church's lawsuit and land battle if anything that is notable and the only reason his name is mentioned in those articles is because he's acting as the church's spokesman.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I reworked the article some and added some more sourcing, and I agree there was definitely vanity spam in there that needed editing.  Not extremely notable, but I'd say he's notable enough for inclusion.  He's totally a southern california dude, isn't he, though I see all these references to him preaching in europe, africa, etc.--Milowent (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.