Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Alden Adams


 * 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. Many of the arguments for retaining the article are rather weak in nature, and lack the support of relevant policies. However, this obviously no consensus for deletion, hence no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Don Alden Adams

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No notability outside JW literature. Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Jeffro77. Role of president is now an administrative appointment only, with no input into doctrines or practices as was the case with his early predecessors. LTSally (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Eleven other Wikipedias have found him worthy of an article, and his position is a very important one, so I see no reason we should not have this article. The lack of independent media coverage is a concern, but we should make efforts to remedy that without considering deleting this article. __meco (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Inclusion in other Wikipedias is not an indication of notability. Wikipedia does not have articles about everyone in 'an important position'. Please go and read the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion of articles about people. If the foreign-language articles do have reliable third-party sources, they should be included in this article and expanded. However, if they are not based on reliable third-party sources they do not lend weight to keeping the English article, and should also be removed themselves.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if it's not an important policy position any more, it would then be a notable honorific. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can provide more than merely incidental information (such as lists people who have occupied the position) in reliable third-party sources about him, that would be fine.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference to "an important honorific" makes no sense. If you mean that he is referred to as "President Adams" (which I doubt) that still fails to meet the criteria of WP:N or WP:BIO. The latter guideline requires that to be deemed notable, Mr Adams has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. So far no such sources are cited in his article. LTSally (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The man is the president of the primary organization used by a significant religion, successor to Charles Taze Russell, J. F. Rutherford, Nathan Knorr, and F. W. Franz. References are available. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The other individuals listed are notable for significant changes they instituted in the religion. Please present third-party references for such notability of Adams.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am convinced that this article do include information that is of interest for the readers. If there is no third party source, why not try to search for some? Summer Song (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you, the creator of the article, believe such sources exist, feel free to present them.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added sixteen secondary sources (see diff). --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do any of them say anything particularly notable, or do they just list him among people who have been in the position?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Don Alden Adams.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2009 (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.