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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Stevens (pastor)[edit]

[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)

No reliable sources to establish notability. BilCat (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep as multiple SIGCOV and reliable sources provided. I'd ask that you reconsider nominating articles for deletion immediately after they're deprodded by someone who says that sources are available. It's close to assuming bad faith. Was I just fibbing when I said that there's a clip file? No.[1]--Jahaza (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would I know? You didn't cite the link in your de-prod. But from looking at the file, it seems to be local notability only. There's still no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. BilCat (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would know by assuming good faith that when I said it in the edit summary I wasn't just making it up. There's no need to push so hard and fast for deletion.--Jahaza (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Local notability only is not, as far as I can tell, actually a policy based thing. The clip file includes multiple "significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources". That those sources are local or regional newspapers isn't actually a policy-based reason for deletion, especially when there's a general claim of notability for a particular reason (founder of a college).--Jahaza (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep heads of universities (let alone founders) per WP:NACADEMIC #6. There is no evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed in this instance, although as a common name it is a little difficult to search for. But I found this source easily enough and this and that has convinced me that more sources will be forthcoming. St Anselm (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As the founder of Carolina University, he certainly ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the clipping file, the guy passes GNG. Some of those papers are regional. The Sentinel was the city paper for a long time, but others like the Mebane paper are a good distance away from WS. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2022 (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.