Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fr. Larry R. Richards

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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. Larry R. Richards[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Will require a major rewrite in order to be encyclopediatic. References are essentially just external links. Appears to be written by someone with close connections to the subject. Osarius - Want a chat? 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Afd ≠ cleanup. Dloh cierekim 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little if any content is salvageable. —swpb^T 19:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references denote any widespread media coverage to qualify for notability. A Google news search presented much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:*Search terms are tricky, I searched Larry + Richards + Erie and readily found sources on a Proquest archibve search. I'm sure that searching other combinations would turn up more hits, didn't even try "Fr. Larry R. Richards" because it seemed an unlikely way for media to refer to him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree with User:Dlohcierekim. Subject seems notable. However, author must avoid bias and personal tone if they do know the subject, (which they shouldn't in accordance with Wikipedia's Policy), should keep their article as professional and unbiased as possible. A re-write is highly recommended. —User4495 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reference here, or, better yet, on the article, independent widespread coverage talking about the subject? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article needs to be edited to let some of the hot air out, achieve an encyclopedic tone. I have, however, sourced it. He is a popular speaker on the Catholic Evangelical circuit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just gave the article a massive haircut, ~~in the process I ran a gNews seerch on his "Reason for Our Hope Foundation", and hits [1] persuade me that a short article supporting notability can be written.~~ On second look, hits on the Foundation are in a publication put out by a diocese where he was running a conference, by the same publisher who published the book, or are otherwise unpersuasive for notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Went to article creator's talk page and began to explain how WP works, but stopped myself before I wrote something downright unChristian. I used to be dismissive of editors who wanted to delete every piece of WP:PROMO written by a hired gun or a new editor with an apparent COI. But I am coming around to their POV. Even with someone like this, an arguable notable priest. I am just out of patience with singers,and writers and activists using Wikipedia as free advertising space. End of rant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing notability for local priest. Being a public speaker does not provide notability on its own, and his foundation does not appear to have distinguished activities or coverage in RS beyond that of other religious organizations. Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, something like a diocesan newspaper writing up a diocesan conference where he is speaking, is in the category of a local paper; it does not support notability, but can be used as a WP:RS on facts. But discussion of him in major publications that happen to be Catholic or Christian, such as the National Catholic Reporter, First Things or Patheos do support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk)

Delete Changing my ivote after adding half a dozen solid sources in an attempt to source that article persuasively, and failing. He seems to be an inspiring motivational speaker, popular enough to be flying around the country talking to enthusiastic audiences, have ~1,500 twitter followers, write books that sell and get mentioned in interviews by people who found them inspirational,, but I can't find enough reliable, secondary sources to support notability. If anybody can source it persuasively, feel free to ping me to reconsider. He has an awfully common name, so I may be simply not be using the right keyword.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2017 (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.