Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald L. Hallstrom


 * 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 keep. This is a weak enough 'keep', based on the strength - or, I should say, lack thereof - of the !votes that I seriously considered closing this as "no consensus". But the fact remains that it's a unanimous 'keep' (aside from the nominator, of course), so the weakest of keep conclusions this is. Because of that I'll note that for this one there isn't the usual "this would be disruptive" if a second nomination is considered desirable. The Bushranger One ping only 10:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Donald L. Hallstrom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article appears to be sourced only from publications associated with his position in the Mormon church. Neither a quick Google search nor a quick Google Books search turned up a lick of coverage that wasn't published by the LDS Church, which can't be considered an independent source in the context of an LDS official p  b  p  14:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Hallstrom is part of the Presidency of the Seventy, making him one of the top 22 leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints. The sources are not created by him or under his direct supervision. There is enough information to indicate he is notable, especially since there are articles on everyone else who has been a member of the Presidency of the Seventy.198.109.0.16 (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because there are other articles on other people who have held this office doesn't exclude this article from having proper sourcing. And I don't think you properly understand what's "independent".  One commonly used definition is "vested interest", and it's clear that Hallstrom has a vested interest in the LDS Church that has produced the sources on him.  p  b  p  17:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. As mentioned, Hallstrom holds an important role in the LDS Church. By virtue of his place as a Seventy, he is one who is in a prominent spot on the list of those who might become church president. If all the apostles suddenly died all at once (hasn't happened yet, but that's not saying it couldn't happen), the Presidency of the Seventy would be the next hierarchical body from which the new Church President will be chosen. Hallstrom serves both as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy and a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, who give lifetime service, as they are merely released as general authorities. Just like any other Seventy, he will be granted emeritus status the October following his birthday. I have searched the internet for mentions of members of the Presidency of the Seventy, and a good majority of those I've come in contact with are from non-LDS sources. I won't post links to any of those tonight, but I can assure you, such links do exist. Did anyone in favor of page deletion even bother to check articles mentioning Hallstrom by doing a web search? Those sources are easy to come across. At the end of the day, I think the proposal to delete this article shows a clear anti-LDS bias. There are several articles about the LDS Church here on Wikipedia, and most of those use LDS-related sources for verification. I think a better approach to this issue is to post on the Latter Day Saint movement page here and invite comments. Since I am coming late to this discussion, I want to get verification that what I'm telling you is true. I've been swamped with a move, a job, and health issues, which have forced me to cut down on Wikipedia time. If not for all that, I could have the sources for you by tomorrow. With everything on my plate the way it is, it may take several days or a week or slightly more to again find these sources. I would ask for your patience with me as I work to prove my point. I would also request that any further discussion, unless it's a new argument for or against deleting this page, be suspended until I can provide those sources I've promised. Can we agree to that, please? --Jgstokes (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted in the nomination, the first page of Google search contains only LDS-related sources. And, as noted in previous nominations, it's not an "anti-LDS bias", it's a desire for independent sources; somebody whose notability comes from a particular organization needs to have at least some sources that aren't affiliated in any manner with that organization.  Also, I don't believe being a Seventy is enough for something to automatically be kept even if sources can't be found.  If you believe this, you should suggest that WP:N for people be included.  p  b  p  15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, pending secondary sources. If, as stated, he is a major personality in the LDS, there shouldn't be much difficulty in finding good independent secondary sources. JMWt (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or userify, obviously notable per Seventy_(LDS_Church), pending secondary sources. --Elvey(t•c) 03:32, 28 November 2015 (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.