Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven R. Bangerter

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. Sandstein 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven R. Bangerter[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)

Source searches for independent reliable sources are not providing any significant coverage, just passing mentions. Some primary sources are found, but those are not usable to establish notability. The subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any additional secondary sources, so perhaps deletion is appropriate here.Dig _deeper ^talk 14:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I could find is a profile at his law firm which is not independent. No significant in depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also could not find any sources that would support any form of notability. Finnishela (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found one indepth source that has been reprinted in another place,[1][2] but it is only one, also though theoretically independent, practically it is a hagiography. --GRuban (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:45, 24 August 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.