Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall L. Ridd

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randall L. Ridd[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, with no sources independent of the church from which his notability stems. One of many slapdash LDS official articles that need to be deleted p b p 00:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The clear consensus has been that members of general presidencies of the LDS Church are notable. What needs to be done is in-depth searches for sources, some of which may not be online, not broad based and massive deletion attempts. The whole tone of these deletion nominations is combative and rude.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: Pointer to this consensus, please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated elsewhere, Ribb does not control the sources invovled. To claim he does just is not a tenable claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Still waiting for this pointer to consensus. And your insistence that just because the subject doesn't control what the source writes means that it is independent is facile. The work is produced by someone affiliated with the subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in light of the fact that no consensus has been shown, and there still isn't proper sourcing, JPL's vote holds no weight. p b p 23:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources that cannot be considered self-sources.Jacona (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources showing notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose. I don't understand why this article about one of the Church's general officers has been nominated for deletion while others are left alone. To me, it's a matter of all or none. That is, either all general officers are relevant subjects for articles or none are. So which is it? I also find it interesting that only the articles I have written are being nominated for deletion. I feel like my work is being unfairly singled out, when there are other articles of the same situation (no sources outside of LDS-related ones) that are being left alone. I also feel like there is no argument I can make that would allow any or all such articles to be kept. This bothers me. LDS-related resources are just as reliable as non-LDS-related resources. They can be verified just as easily. So I don't see the problem in having articles just cite LDS-related resources. I fail to see how an article fails to reach GNG standards simply because the only resources available are LDS-related ones. Any light you can shed on these subjects would be appreciated. As with all previous discussions, this will likely be my only comment. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your premise is incorrect. It's like saying all university professors are notable or none are. No, we use WP:ACADEMIC to determine which are notable. As we don't have a similar guideline for religious figures, we fall back on WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage in independent sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of articles needing deletion that aren't on afd, but that doesn't mean we should give up and never delete another article! It's not that this one is unfairly singled out, it is that many others are surviving in spite of a total lack of encyclopedic value....get out there and delete them!Jacona (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Per above (WP:BIO/WP:GNG). There are a few independent sources, but not many and not very significant. Happy to be proven wrong if more turn up, though. I posted some comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Y. Wilson that are too long to copy/paste, but which address some of the concerns raised. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:56, 10 June 2014 (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.