Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Christian Weston Chandler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Strong Delete: This person is hardly noteworthy. Christian Chandler is only known to a small group of people who think of him as some sort of an internet oddity, and really don't think much of him at all. Two other small radio shows have talked about him, but they focused more on how disturbed and odd he is rather than his comic. Both radio show hosts couldn't even remember his name. If this is noteworthy enough to get a Wikipedia page, than I have long list of other people from the Youtube community that are about as noteworthy as this guy and thus should have a Wikipedia article. 174.19.134.250 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Before I can even go into why it should be kept, this page needs to be unlocked. If you're going to have articles like boh3m3 or Cory Williams and other YouTube nobodies; then you might as well have one on Chris-chan. I believe you call they this [video producer]. Well, Chris-chan is in fact notable and should be wikified. Namely he's an internet meme, internet celebrity, and YouTube video producer [1]. These are all categories Wikipedia documents. Apelike (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add further that I worry many of you are being bigoted in regards to this topic. Just because he's autistic doesn't mean he isn't relevant or notifiable. I really fail to understand why he is any different than thehill88 or renetto. I still remember when Chris Crocker was deleted and called a "just another average Joe". Regardless, the case is clear; censorship is wrong. So I agree with Chris-chan, and not with wikifascism or prejudice against those with disabilities. Apelike (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: No. He is the epitomy of utter failure. An article on Chris Chan would be detrimental to him as it would confirm his belief that the world revolves around him. Also, his videos are not particualry notable, often they are repetive threats against ED, homosexuals, trolls etc. Perhaps there should be a page for every nutjob with a camera that posts insignificant garbage on youtube. It's ED's job to keep track of memes and internet attention whores, not ours. 86.46.217.215 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Apelike, your reasoning is solid, but it doesn't work here as it's something Chris himself wants to have control over. He doesn't want documentation of the things that have made him the punchline of the internet. He doesn't want his unfathomably long list of flaws to be mentioned. Frankly, he doesn't want something that is even remotely accurate. He just wants to babble about a bunch of crap nobody cares about (he seriously thinks he belongs on Wikipedia because he "got good grades in school"). There is no reason whatsoever to not lock this up and throw away the key forever. You Wikipedia guys want to be taken as seriously as you take yourselves, a good start would be not allowing this vortex of failure anywhere near you. William Maize (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The whole "he wants to control it" arguement doesn't fly because this is wikipedia and all are able to edit it. And after the whole scandal with the DOD editing articles, and Mr.Wales controling the information of his own article, and the blocks on various pages, I don't think its really a control concern. And quite frankly calling this poor man the punchline of the internet is outright rude (and if he is the "punchline of the itnernet" that would make him notable would it not?), half this site claims to be high functioning autistics and I know for a fact that there are wiki admins and sysops that act and look funnier then this guy, most of them at least have userpages where they post thier own self indulgent garbage, why not give this man his due? Also nice way to use a bunch of encyclopedia dramatica language you say "you wikipedia guys" as if you arent a user here with your own bullshit userpage. --97.93.232.67 (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong ROFL I'm pretty sure he doesn't warrant a page but he got his user page deleted. That's a tad harsh innit? I'm just sayin. --75.85.13.181 (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Chris has achieved fame on the Internet, he is a notable person and I dare say he deserves an article on Wikipedia, not just a userpage. At minimum he should have a sub-userpage detailing his life. Steppres (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'd say keep, as this is a great look into the autistic mind. Plus, it's more organized than his actual website. And enough people know about him to make it notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.33.46 (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This loser really thinks the whole world revolves around him and he deserves a page for "Getting good grades"? And helping out at a pokemon trading card game? This article is completely unimportant and it should be deleted promptly. Also, due to trolling attempts on this particular person, having this page is just encouraging vandalism and hatred against them on Wikipedia.
Weak Delete: Last time I checked we weren’t MySpace or ED. Don’t entertain his egotistical delusions on Tudor lineage, or societal leadership. We aren’t about to start covering every Brian Pepers out there, whether they ask it or not... Only the social phenomenon has some potential, and outside of /b/ the only mainstream to note his mess was Sullivan Freepsbane (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: In agreeance with the two above posters, deletion seems like the only rational answer. This isn't MySpace or ED, and while he may be important to himself, he's just another average Joe getting "internet fame" through mass trolling. The less attention this guy gets, the better. Faroush (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Strong Delete: he mentions no sources, he only writes things about his life from his point of view. worthless article about a worthless nobody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.72.121 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: We must keep this. This could be a deep, somewhat hideous look into the thoughts of an autistic. It does not matter that he is an utter failure, I mean, the most obese man in the world is wiki-worthy, why cant there be another failure like Chris? I think if we edit the article a teensy bit here and there this will be an article that means something. Chris is an egotistical self centered nobody, sure, but lets not forget that there are alot of egotistical self centered nobodies with Wikipedia pages.--P. Skiddy (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)P. Skiddy[reply]
Strong Keep: This page should be kept as in Christian is definitely an internet celebrity whose notoriety is at least on par with most of the people within Category:Internet_personalities as well as various other nobodies such as John Portsmouth Football Club Westwood that have their own articles. As another person stated, if the many admins and sysops of this website can fill their userpage with self indulgent drivel why can't Christian?
Strong Delete: Just delete this mess. Wikipedia is not a place for some narcissistic man-child to place himself on the pedestal. This is far from a "chance to achieve a great perspective of the autistic mind." Christian Chandler is a broken clock, at best. He blames all the external and internal foibles in his life on his "autism" (When, as a matter of fact, "high-function autism" is not that terrible as he puts it out to be." If you honestly think that having a very-small fanbase to a fictional rip-off character, helping a "community" (with no evidence) and claiming to assist a trading card game store, then EVERYONE should have their own Wiki page for all the useless tasks they've done.

On top of that, Wikipedia is not totally owned by a democracy. The administrators own this website, so they can do whatever they damn well please. Wikipedia has always been critiqued of "useless, unproven trash" written by random people. Keeping this embarassment of an article only strengthens the argument. Orly44 (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: As a guest of this site the basis of him having his Wikipedia page is based that he is just using the rules of unwarranted self importance to give him some self worth which he clearly doesn't deserve as he hasn't really contributed anything worthwhile to society I don't see why we should keep his article here.
Strong Keep: Chris is an internet celeberity and deserves a page just as much as half the pages on here. Other youtube personalities have wikipedia pages, why not chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.99.3 (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Chris has been known throughout the internet, internet videos, real life news, he deserves an Honoury mention, kthx. 82.45.110.144 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Christian is known all over the Internet, even outside of the *chans. If other Internet celebrities can have Wikipedia articles, Christian should be able to have a Wikipedia article. He's been a celeb for two years now and, like I said before, well-known throughout the Internet. Plus, I really think this CAN help give Wikipedia readers a look into the perspective of someone with autism. Give this guy a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.181.213 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Christian has been seen all over the internet in various notable content, as mentioned in several places above, he seriously deserves his entry. CynicallyInsane (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Theres no reason that Chris shouldn't be able to have his own page. He's an internet celebrity, and regardless of the content, it would be unfair to prevent him from having an account. He has made more videos than Chris Crocker and he is very well known. He is also noteworthy because of the creation of his Sonichu comic series, which somehow has a 'fanbase' regardless if it's real or not. --72.95.134.60 (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: I just do not think any YouTuber deserves an article, but I will recognise when they have met the requirements. Sure people like Tay Zonday and Chris Crocker have articles, but they were atleast featured on television shows and stuff as guests. All Chris Chan did was feature in two local news reports a decade or so ago (one that wasn't even about him) and attract alot of trolls. Yes, he has been talked about, but not on the same scale as other people. Deltic Guardian (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note to commenters

Many of you appear to be new to Wikipedia, so you may not be familiar with our notability criteria. Articles are kept not based on whether the subject is likable, amusing, or interesting, but based on whether they have been the subject of significant writing in reliable sources. The article has already been deleted, so comments here on this talk page are entirely useless. If you have found new reliable sources that clearly show that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, you can request undeletion at deletion review. However, none of the comments on this page include any sources at all; please don't waste deletion reviewers' time by opening a request for undeletion unless you have carefully read the notability criteria and can cite at least three good sources (like newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, or really, really significant online sources) that discuss this person's importance in detail. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • please then explain why there are so many articles about people who are fictional characters in comic books or movies, specifically comic book characters, like Power_Girl, is it that chris is not nerdy enough? or that he is a real person? comic books are not a citable source, as any college professor will tell you, neither is wikipedia, simply because of articles like the one i mentioned, either its all or nothing. chris has as many or more subscribers than half the people on the youtube personalities article, that should be grounds for his own article since none of them have adequite sources either. --97.93.232.67 (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to revise the notability criteria, you'll want to discuss that on the talk page of that policy. This isn't a place where a change in the criteria will happen. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion

According to Wikipedia Policy, the Notability for a "Creative Professional" are as follows (with comments in bold):

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. * See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics

Can you provide reliable, third-party, published sources (published on the web works, of course) that show it is "significant, well-known or has received critical attention"? Just saying they've received attention on the internet gets us back to the same concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? Sonichu is so obscure that I doubt any more than a handful of people actually knows about it. 174.19.134.250 (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he mirrored his wikipedia userpage at his website http://www.cwcville.com/CWCipedia/CWCTruth.html Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would like an unbiased article on Christian Weston Chandler. If you can have articles on three internet memes, Christian isn't too much of a stretch

Conicteam (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please place and discuss notable sources in this section

Here's some sources people have said are notable. Feel free to explain if they're not.

Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The radio shows explain how obscure and disturbed Christian Chandler is, and most of them don't even remember his name. These radio shows aren't showing how notable he is, they're showing him off as an internet oddity. He is not noteworthy at all, and thus shouldn't have his own article. Also, the first two broadcasts are the same.174.19.134.250 (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I'm not saying this stuff is enough for notability. I'm just gathering the stuff up until there is enough for notability. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


He was on television news as a child. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFQrhp84jDo Getting closer to notability now. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris was on the news briefly over McIntire Park closing [2] and then he was on TV or someting during a city council meeting about it. [3]. Yeah I know not the best stuff, but I'll just leave this here. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


So those Megaupload links are gone and the others well thankfully are on the internet archive.

But anyway, there's a new news article from December 2014 about him: http://wiiudaily.com/2014/12/man-maces-gamestop-employee-over-sonic-boom Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Surge of Noteworthy Sources

As you probably know, the individual formerly known as Christian Weston Chandler and now legally named Christine Weston Chandler, has been recently arrested on charges of incest. This news has sparked a flurry of interest in Chris-Chan from reliable sources, a few of which are listed below.

https://www.newsweek.com/chris-chan-interrupts-court-proceedings-over-incest-charges-stomping-feet-1616880

https://www.insider.com/chris-chan-lawyer-incest-charge-arrest-mental-health-2021-8

https://www.insider.com/chris-chan-arrest-geno-samuel-youtube-series-hiatus-2021-8

https://www.insider.com/chris-chan-court-hearing-trending-arrest-famous-on-the-internet-2021-8

https://www.insider.com/chris-chan-moved-to-virginia-jail-after-arrest-incest-charge-2021-8

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15772217/chris-chan-sonicho-goddess-arrested/

https://www.the-sun.com/news/3394847/chris-chan-sonichu-arrested-incest/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9859653/Trans-YouTuber-Chris-Chan-39-filed-female-police-housed-women-inmates.html (yes, I am aware the Daily Mail is generally not considered reliable)

With this newfound interest in Chris-Chan from mainstream sources, I believe that this article should be Undeleted. 2607:FEA8:5AA0:D97:C430:807C:3125:EE74 (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Weston_Chandler&oldid=1108739438"