Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley D. Foster


 * 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. Secret account 16:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Bradley D. Foster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another LDS general authority article that has no sources except from LDS websites. As there is no policy stating that LDS general authorities are inherently notable, we default to GNG, which is clearly not met with this article. p b  p  03:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As has been capably argued with other articles about general authorities, just because they fail GNG doesn't automatically make them unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I still believe that Vojen's excellent argument on this matter cannot be overlooked. The main argument against it? That it ignores GNG, which Vojen freely admits. As previously noted, there have been other articles that are more poorly sourced than this one, or not sourced at all, which remain untouched. I don't like the double standard here. Either all of these articles should be kept or none of them should be. I see a dangerous precedent being set. If we allow poorly sourced or non-sourced articles to remain while informational articles such as this, even if the sources tend to come from one particular organization and thus "violate" GNG, we are sending a clear message that we don't want to risk anyone being enlightened about such subjects. And I'm not sure that's a message we want to be sending. What about those users who come here for information on general authorities and can't find them? If you are going to argue that Second Quorum members fail GNG, then surely dead prophets and apostles do too, since their legacy has no further impact. I believe everyone would agree it would be foolhardy to suggest that any of those articles be deleted. So I have to ask why Second Quorum members are being unfairly singled out, simply because their service is not considered lifelong? As with other deletion discussions, this will likely be my one and only comment. I will be monitoring this page to see how this discussion turns out. And, as with previous deletion discussions, I urge civility and good faith in all discourses related to this issue. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , would you rather I started 10-15 separate AfDs all at once?  The way I'm doing it (stringing the AfDs out over 3 months and counting) allows you that much more time to try to source the articles.  And, yes, Vojen's argument can be overlooked, because he, and you, are ignoring the primary guideline that determines whether articles stay or go.  The only message we are sending by enforcing GNG is that articles require reliable sources to be articles.  You don't seem to understand that that is a must for any Wikipedia article, and it's even more of a must for somebody like Foster who is still.  Comparing living dead general authorities to dead members of the Quorum of the Twelve is apples and oranges.  Dead members of the Quorum of the Twelve are not only exempt from BLP, they may have more information written about them.  "Impact of legacy" is not a determiner for keeping articles, sourcing is.  Claiming that this article should be allowed to exist while other articles that are seemingly worse are allowed to remain is generally considered an invalid argument.  From your responses in this and other AfDs, it's becoming clear to me that you don't understand GNG.  I suggest you read it, as Wikipedia's sourcing policies and guidelines and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, before participating in more AfDs or creating more LDS authority articles.   p  b  p  21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   03:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. If you can find independent reliable sources, then fine -- but until then, the article should not exist. --Larry (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Find independent RSs and we can talk. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete independent reliable sources are required to establish notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (like several others from the list which have gone through AfD, e.g. Wilson, Alvarez, Hamilton). Fails GNG. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.