Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Surber


 * 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   redirect to Cypress Chapel Christian Church. (anything else useful can be merged in) Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris Surber

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

 HARSH  TALK  14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can you please state the reason for your nomination? -- WikHead (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Could you add an explanation of why you AFDed this 1 minute after its creation by a newbie? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article had no references when I tagged it. But there is no reason now to AFD it.  HARSH  TALK  17:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In a case like this, you first wait a bit to see whether any references are forthcoming. If there aren't, then you first use WP:BLPPROD. If that doesn't help either and you yourself are also unable to find sources, then you go to AfD. But now that we are here, it is perhaps a bit too hasty to withdraw the nom already. The sources are very meager, to say the least. What makes you think the subject now meets WP:GNG? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I question the validity of this AfD because the nominator has still not given a clear-cut reason for the nomination. The article did indeed have three references at the time of its premature nomination. We can only assume at this point, that this AfD deals with potential notability issues. -- WikHead (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This was a poor nomination, and could easily have been speedily closed, but the subject certainly doesn't seem to be notable. The church is presumably notable, though it doesn't have an article, but notability is not inherited. When it comes down to it, this guy is an ordinary pastor. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If the church is notable, why do we not have an article on it? Some of the contnet is actually on the church, rather than the pastor, so perhaps it could be repurposed to an artilce on the church.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep partially because I just gave the article an overhaul, so take a look and see if you still feel as you do. But I don't feel too strongly about that. I separated the content about the man from that about the church, and that leaves three sentences each. I think we're looking at a stub whether we want this to be about either one. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Undecided - based partially on the re-purposing idea introduced by User:Peterkingiron (above), and the fact that I'm uncertain of what additional notability (if any) could be established through the books authored by the subject. If the church is indeed notable, the article may be worth renaming, reworking, and keeping. -- WikHead (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. In order to help people decide, I have split the very useful added material off into an article on Cypress Chapel Christian Church. StAnselm (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge any useful content → Cypress Chapel Christian Church. -- WikHead (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. --BDD (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Cypress Chapel Christian Church per BDD. Maratrean (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2012 (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.