Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry R. Lawrence


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Biblio  worm  17:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Larry R. Lawrence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP with only references ripped from non-independent website. Similar general authorities to this have been deleted. GNG the primary relevant policy here, as there is no policy or guideline granting notability to LDS authorities p  b  p  00:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Vojen's excellent argument on previous articles. I have read all the relevant policies and am still of the belief that Vojen's argument is a sound one. I believe we make a mistake when articles are nominated for deletion without first making an attempt to resolve issues that exist in order to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. But I have learned through sad experience that whatever I say, I will be ridiculed and bawled out for it. So I would merely say that I would like us to give this article a chance at life before we go nominating it for deletion. And that being said, I urge civility in our discussion. This will likely be my one and only comment on the issue. I will, however, be following this page to see what the outcome is. Whatever happens, I can be content that I have spoken out in defense of this article. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Excellent argument?" LOL. The relevant policy here is GNG.  The article fails GNG as currently constituted.  Vojen has admitted to not caring about GNG.  Vojen's argument is a slap in the face to existing policy, and therefore heavily flawed and not really a good argument.  p  b  p  15:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It was well explained elsewhere that by virtua of their office these people come to be seen as authorities on religious issues by millions. This was eloquently explained, and in the discussion on Randy Funk where it was so eloquently explained, the article was kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is an other-stuff-exists argument, and not valid. On Randy Funk, you just got lucky.  That article being kept doesn't mean that this one automatically passes GNG.  In fact, this article doesn't pass GNG.   p  b  p  20:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It has been demonstrated that the sources here listed for people such as Lawrence are widely quoted by others often verbatim to give his life history. In my view, this shows a wide view that in connection to biographical information, these sources are reliable. The reality of Mormon-related media would mean excluding these sources would give preference to sources that actively seek to discredit and attack the LDS Church, and would undermine the neutral point of view principals of Wikipedia, giving preference to sources only on one side of an issue and the things they feel are important.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , User:NeilN and I have explained to you numerous times why what you've just said isn't reflective of Wikipedia policy. Sources must be independent of the topic they are covering.  A rock band member can't be sourced primarily from his rock band's website.  A college professor can't be sourced primarily from his college's website.  And a religious leader can't be sourced primarily from his church's website.  It is sourcing a religious leader from his church's website that undermines Wikipedia's neutrality.  As for sources that seek to actively discredit Mormonism, no, it doesn't really do that either.  What it does is privilege sources that are neither laudatory nor antogonistic.  Again, I've explained this to you several times; I don't understand why you keep trotting out the same mudslinging and non-policy-based arguments over and over and over again.  p  b  p  20:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither the Ensign nor the Church News are websites. They are a magazine and a weekly newspaper respectively. Such differences matter and complicate your simplistic statements. Beyond that, you are willing to dismiss such works as the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History although more by ignoring them, than by dealing with them when they are brought up. You have also consistently avoided dealing with the most clear analogies. Instead you have always chosen the most combative language and insulting turns of phrase.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I am in agreement that this level of LDS church leadership confers a very strong presumption of notability, analogous to how we treat Olympic athletes, state and provincial legislators, widely cited scientists and academics, Roman Catholic bishops, and secondary schools, none of which are expected to comply fully with the GNG. I agree with the lengthy and persuasive "keep" arguments at Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk, which apply in this case as well. In addition, the GNG, is not policy but rather a subsection of a broad guideline. Hence the name, "General notability guideline". Repeatedly calling it policy does not make it so, and subject specific notability guidelines are created because the GNG is not universally applicable.


 * As the guideline on notability says, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."


 * In my view, this is a good example of such an "occasional exception", and I believe that keeping articles about such LDS church officials improves this encyclopedia. On a personal note, I am a progressive Jew, not a Mormon, so my thoughts are in no way motivated by my religious beliefs. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Olympians may in fact be a good analogy. We keep articles on anyone who participated in the Olympics, even though reliable, 3rd-party sources on some are almost non-existent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, . I may well disagree with you in the future on other issues, but on this one, we agree. Consider an Olympic athlete from a third tier country in the Track and Field competitions that were held in 1932 in Los Angeles. It so happens that I knew a Young Communist who was arrested in a protest at those games. Young then, elderly when I knew him. But back to the competitor: I am certain that a library search in the regional newspapers of the area where that athlete lived would produce good sources, which are unlikely to be available online. Similarly, track and field journals of the area are likely to cover that person. General track and field journals of that era should be considered independent. Similarly, general LDS publications should be considered independent when discussing LDS officials who exert no direct editorial control over those publications. The same should be said about Roman Catholic publications. If the bishop in question does not exert individual editorial control over the publication in question, then I consider it an independent source. If would be absurd to expect coverage in Hindu or Buddhist publications of a Roman Catholic bishop, or a Mormon official like Lawrence. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  07:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (as with so many other AfDs that saw similar OTHERSTUFF/IAR-type keep arguments: Ochoa, Foster, Wilson, Alvarez, Hamilton...). Fails GNG/BIO. These notability guidelines are the product of grueling, extensive consensus-driven discussions. If it doesn't cover something you feel should be covered, it would be more productive to present an argument at the appropriate notability talk page to try to change it there. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:03, 27 November 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.