Talk:Kent F. Richards

Follow-up on the recent AFD
The contention in the AFD was over whether a profile, and other coverage in Deseret is sufficient to establish notability for a Mormon leader given that Deseret is church affiliated, but also a statewide paper that covers Mormon church affairs the way the cities in cities with lots of Catholics cover the diocesan affairs. So, now there is a profile of Richards in a big Utah paper  owned by an out-of-state  for-profit corporation. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that the AFD was answered by church placement of an AFD a profile in a non-Church-related newspaper. Good way to game WP. Score one Mormons. On the other hand, that's pretty grandiose. It assumes that someone in an office in Salt Lake City monitors WP articled on Mormon leaders. I have no idea. I'm removing the tags, because this (and the increasing coverage that has followed his new-ish job) really does seem to satisfy concerns. I'm flagging User:Lankiveil, User:Good Olfactory, User:Cavarrone, User:Banaticus, User:Purplebackpack89/C only because I thought some of you might be amused by this evidence that someone in Utah apparently has the resources to answer prayers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * a) AFD was answered by church placement of an AFD? I don't understand what you're saying.  b) It's entirely possible that someone at church HQ was aware of this because I called them.  I tried to see if I could get a confirmation on whether such articles as http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960234-1 were authored (in part) by the same Kent F. Richards who's the subject of this article.  I'm fairly certain it is, but I didn't want to list it unless I could be really certain.  I got as far as Richard's secretary, who said that she'd call me back after verifying, but she never did and I didn't care enough to call back a second time.  I don't think there's any sort of conspiracy theory here.  I think, as more light is shed on a subject, you're going to find more on that topic. Banaticus (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was joking. (the word "amused" was supposed to be the tip-off) The Standard Examiner is an independent, reliable source.  It would be grandiose of Wikipedians to think that the LDS Church cares enough about Wikipedia to plant articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)