Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaughn J. Featherstone

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. Note: a "keep" without evidence is not much help. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughn J. Featherstone[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)

Does not meet WP:BASIC, as per source searches. Not to be disrespectful, but the only real coverage found is about the subject's death, making this a WP:BLP1E situation as well. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While minimal coverage is available online, he was an important figure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Trevanbaxter (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The minimal coverage available about the subject is why he does not qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If he was an important LDS figure, is there any more coverage of him? Say, in print? DS (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being an important figure in the Church, General authority, or even a First Quorum of the Seventy does not provide inherent notability. In fact, the sources, the Ensign and Deseret News, are both owned by the LDS making them Primary sources , that certainly would be questionable as far as NPOV is concerned. Otr500 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2019 (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.