Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean M. Davies


 * 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   no consensus. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  02:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dean M. Davies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Church official seems not notable, no significant independent coverage found in reliable sources. He is covered by organizations owned/supported by the church on which his notability is predicated, but these aren't independent sources. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) owns Deseret Management Corp., which publishes the daily newspaper Deseret News, its weekly insert Church News, and the annual Deseret News Church Almanac, and Intellectual Reserve Inc., which owns Lds.org, MormonNewsroom.org which produces press releases, Liahona magazine, and Ensign magazine. Agyle (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Are you bound and determined to delete every article that features only LDS-related sources? If that's the case, we can kiss most of the articles about general authorities goodbye, and I don't think that's fair or just. Davies is notable because of his service as a member of the Presiding Bishopric. He participates in all decisions that the Presiding Bishopric is empowered to make, as well as having a prominent role in the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes as prescribed by revelation. He is one of only 19 men who have served as Second Cousnelors in the Presiding Bishopric in this dispensation. I don't see any other Presiding Bishopric members, present or former, being singled out for deletion, so I don't know why Davies is being so singled out. I understand (and even accept) what was said about this article not meeting GNG, but I'm still very much afraid that we are doing articles a grave injustice by nominating them for deletion without first discussing on the talk page how to handle the items of concern (such as GNG). My vote is to keep this article because it can and should be improved, and he is notable. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Are you bound and determined to delete...?" No, but I think it's a question worth raising.
 * "...I don't t hink that's fair or just." The same notability standards apply to other biographies on Wikipedia.
 * "...I don't know why Davies is being so singled out." Caussé and Stevenson seem similarly non-notable, but a single AfD may suggest whether the others are worth nominating, and Davies is the lowest ranking of the three.
 * "...without first discussing on the talk page..." The only concern is notability. It can be addressed by citing independent sources in an AfD just as well as it can be done in Talk. If AfD's don't allow enough time, how long should Talk discussions be given before nomination?
 * "My vote is to keep..." I'd suggest adding "Keep" in bold at the paragraph's start.
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I liken this to a professor with no mentions in the press other than websites from his own university. We need to know that he is considered a ntable person to the general public.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep We have articles on every other member of the presiding bishopric. This is a long term position that involves overseeing a large, international operation. I am 100% sure that sources do exist, they may however by very hard to find, and we should not prejudice against finding them. The fact that all predecessors in this position have articles strongly suggests this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Other recently-appointed bishop articles exist, but also lack independent reliable source references. A glance at a small number of articles does show independent references cited in biographies of bishops from a century ago. Agyle (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not much, but I did find a few web results mentioning Davies that are not owned or operated by the LDS Church. See this link, in which he is mentioned in his new assignment, this link, which though it was from a paper that claims to be Arizona's Mormon Newspaper, is not owned or operated by the Church, and this link, which, though it is copied from the Deseret News, mentions how the entire Presiding Bishopric, Davies included, were honored for their humanitarian outreach. That was what I was able to find just on the first three pages of a Google search. So non-LDS related sources are out there. It just might take a little digging to find them. I will leave it to someone with more Wikipedia policy knowledge than I have to determine which, if any, of these sources, can and should be included in the article and if it makes a difference to this AfD discussion. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The first part of the first link is an article by an SL Trib reporter, but the last few paragraphs in which Davies is described are below the reporter's final byline, and are attributed as "Source: LDS Church". The second link seems unequivocally independent, but the first and third, being generated by the Church, seem questionable; while WP:GNG says "independent of the subject" excludes press releases or other works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with the subject, someone suggested in a similar AfD that independent sources reprinting such press releases indicate notability. Agyle (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- John Reaves 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - there's enough about this LDS leader, in reliable, independent sources, to pass notability. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What are the sources, so others can consider them? ––Agyle (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: There's not much in the article sourcing-wise to show notability.  At least he seems to be higher up in the leadership than the last "general authority" AFD I happened across, but there's no real way I can have a feel for why these folks are notable, aside from having the sourcing to show it.  But if Presiding Bishop (LDS Church) membership is a higher standard than just every "general authority" than that's a more reasonable case.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, job duties are varied, but as a member of the bishopric, Dean could be considered in the top 18 of the 115 or so general authorities. The 3-person presidency is kind of like a CEO, the 3-person presiding bishopric kind of like a COO, overseeing directors of the bureaucratic side of the business (facilities management, purchasing, membership & statistical reports, translation distribution, etc.), and the Council of the Twelve oversees executive committees on the ecclesiastical side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs)


 * Delete: Not enough sources. p  b  p  23:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I think it is quite obvious from this discussion that there is significant coverage in unreliable sources. There might also be some insignificant coverage in reliable sources. Neither passes the GNG, and rightly so: without significant coverage in reliable sources we can't write even a basic biography. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are probably right here. The proponents of this article may not realize that having such BLPs without proper reliable sourcing exposes these articles to abuse, something I am sure they don't wish for.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Minimal sources are not significant coverage, notability not shown for local position. Reywas92 Talk 02:42, 21 July 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.