Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry R. Lawrence (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No prejudice against re-creating as a redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Larry R. Lawrence
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, name checks and fleeting passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:
 * The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America1000 16:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No independent coverage of subject. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think people who hold senior offices in major religious groups can be inherently notable due to that office, regardless of what sources exist for them. For example, I'd say anyone who is a genuine Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church is notable for that fact, and we don't need to ask for sources demonstrating notability, only sources to support the fact that they are a Bishop (and if all the sources are Catholic publications, that shouldn't be an issue for independence). Now, should the same standard apply to LDS general authorities? Tentatively, I'd say yes, although one could make an argument that a rule which applies to a church with over a billion adherents and nearly 2000 years of history might not apply to a church with only 16 million adherents and which was founded less than two centuries ago. Obviously, there are many small denominations/groups with only a few thousand members, which would be notable enough for an article, but their senior leadership would not be inherently notable. There is a spectrum here, and I'm not sure which side of the cut-off the LDS church should said to be on. SJK (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Notify participants in previous discussions. SJK (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I look at it a little differently.  Is there any indication at all that the preponderance of current general authorities receive independent coverage?  At least every few months or so, there's an article in the Los Angeles Times about what Archbishop Gomez is up to.  Do most LDS general authorities receive coverage in their respective local (non-LDS affiliated) newspapers?  I've yet to see this.  And, I'm sorry, but I hold to my position that LDS-affiliated publications such as Deseret News do not constitute the independent coverage required for GNG (again, I must remind everybody that reliability and independence are two different things)  p  b  p  14:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll just copy/paste some of my !vote from the last time, as it doesn't look like anything much has changed: Delete and redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Fails GNG/BIO. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, all I can say is the sourcing we have on Godfrey Okoye is far below the quality of sourcing we have on Lawrence. Michael Ugwu Eneja has an article with no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2018 (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.