Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Allen Chau (missionary)


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. The Moose 13:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

John Allen Chau (missionary)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. All information is adequately covered at Sentinelese and related articles. No need to fork an article about the poor, hapless man in the middle of all this. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This article should be improved, not deleted. Many missionaries have standalone articles, especially if they were murdered or arrested while on foreign soil, including John Short, Jeffrey Edward Fowle, and perhaps the most infamous, Jim Elliot. I think Chau is the most notable example of our time. He was the first missionary (and one of only a few individuals) to ever set foot on North Sentinel Island, he was murdered, and his actions have caused considerable controversy. Much can be added to this article. Dreamanderson (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - easily passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the references in the article. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, the question here is whether he passes WP:BLP1E, and I believe he does, given there is coverage of him that is more extensive than just one news cycle, and there is substantial biographical content sourced to reliable secondary sources that would be out of place in the main Sentinelese article. Undisputedly a moron, but morons still get articles. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The question would also be, if he passes BLP1E and furthermore, WP:BIO1E, does the article need to be renamed "Death of John Chau" or similar as well, which can be adjudicated on the article talk page. The fact remains that this article was created suddenly without discussion, and I feel it was ill-advised. Elizium23 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given he's dead, BLP1E does not apply! Clearly notable in any case. Extensive coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He's been dead over a year, which is on the "outside" curve of 2 years specified in WP:BDP. Elizium23 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I can't come up with any cases where a deleted article has been undeleted after someone has been dead over 2 years, or an article created under WP:BIO1E that would've been deleted if it were created closer to the subject's death. Unless, of course, it were an article about the event and not the person. Elizium23 (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG. Jai49 (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete we can call it BDP1E. He wasn't notable before he tried to proselytize and he isn't notable now. The only reporting has been on his death which is more than adequately covered in the article on the island. Praxidicae (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I suspect that this case will be cited periodically over future years, so that it is worth having an article. This is quite adequately sourced.  His case may differ only from that of Jim Elliot and his martyred companions, in that he left a widow to publicise and follow up what he did.  That does not feel to me a good reason for having an article on one but not the other.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Necrostesp and others—  Crumpled Fire  • contribs • 20:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep--This article is needed to correct misinformation concerning his effort, such as that he did not have adequate linguistic training.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do withe the actual policy based reasoning for keeping or deleting? Praxidicae (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles like this help to reduce the total sum of bigotry in the world. If you read the discussion above you will notice an editor using an unsavory epithet concerning him. Why even have a Wikipedia if hatred should reign supreme? Articles like this help to fight darker impulses. If you you need a policy to understand this, go read the 5 pillars.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is still not a relevant criteria for keeping an article, see WP:ILIKEIT. Perhaps this article does help reduce the amount of bigotry and darker impulses in the world, but Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:GNG. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn by proposer per WP:SNOW. I will proceed to address the naming of the article after close. Thank you for your attention to this exceedingly trivial matter. Elizium23 (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2020 (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.