Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence E. Corbridge

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. This is the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin W. Pearson. Sandstein 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence E. Corbridge[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)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The one reliable source in the article, from the 2009 Deseret News Church Almanac, presumably provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. The remaining three sources in the article are primary, and are not usable to establish notability. Several WP:BEFORE source searches are only providing faint passing mentions (e.g. [1]), minor quotations from the subject (which are primary in nature) and name checks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- General authorities in LDS are like bishops in the Catholic Church. Wikiproject religion considers bishops in the Catholic Church and analogous churches to be notable per WP:BISHOPS. Note that LDS bishops are not automatically notable per this guideline, but LDS general authorities are not bishops, as stated. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:BISHOPS is an opinion essay; it is not a guideline or policy at all. There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments above. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the above !vote:

It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
Its thesis is unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about Lawrence E. Corbridge, not some other subject.
Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.

– I sure hope this isn't closed based upon a simple !vote count. Thus far, not even one source has been presented herein for consideration to potentially qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Community consensus has not supported treating LDS leaders as exempt from GNG, despite repeated efforts to propose such an exemption (see examples in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). So WP:GNG applies to LDS leaders. This is not a problem for LDS leaders who actually get significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. But that's not the case for this article's subject. Sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS (Liahona, Almanac, lds.org) or not reliable ("Grampa Bill") and do not count toward establishing notability. Note that the Almanac is assembled by Church News staff, which is why it is not independent. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources, only the usual passing mentions, event announcements, and Church News items reproduced in Deseret News, along with a single name check in a 1996 local business article in his role as an attorney (under "Larry Corbridge"). The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Open to reconsideration if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, two refs in the article that don't offer notability, usually these LDS articles have a few more refs. Szzuk (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2018 (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.