Talk:Newquist Group

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... The rise of the alt right in the United States has breathed new life into older extreme right organizations such as the John Birch Society. Various National governing board members of the JBS hail from Salt Lake city including David B. Jorgensen. Jorgensen's bio asserts this group has allowed sympathetic ears in LDS to hear "important messages from an array of patriotic authorities that has always included leaders of the John Birch Society." The other reference in the article shows the group to be active as recently as 2014. The Newquist group appears shadowy and poorly documented, but in light of the current climate in the United States this group's "rock" should be identified by a gradual accumulation of information in this article and light be allowed to shine under the "rock". I have attempted to make my representation of the Newquist group as impartial as possible despite my misgivings about its purpose. - atrivo
 * What you seem to be saying is that there is no showable import of this group, but you're hoping that with research, some will be shown. That would seem to be putting Wikipedia in the lead of researching this, which is not where Wikipedia wants to be. Given the low amount of information here, I don't think it would a great loss if it were gone. (If David Jorgensen had an article, I'd say to redirect there.) Perhaps we should move it to draft space, and you can accumulate material there until it's reasonably close to our notability level? --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a number of topics mentioned here which could reasonably stand fleshing out on their own: Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, which does not have an entry but seems to be significant across a wide path of LDS thought, D. Jorgensen, as you say, as well as Jerreld L. Newquist. However, needing fleshing out is true of virtually all stub articles across all of wikipedia. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of the stub classification. Atrivo (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Stubs are things that need fleshing out, but that status is not a substitute for notability. If there was real indication of notability, even one that was not included in the stub but could be pointed to on the talk page, a stub would be fine. Stubs are great if you have source indicating that there is notability, or if you have what would otherwise be red links in a number of articles, suggesting that this would help serve the encyclopedia in that way. However, this has no third-party sources (and I can find none of significance) and is an orphan (and, given the lack of the articles you list, unlikely to soon become otherwise... although I would agree that those articles seem likely to be of more import than this one.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)