Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall K. Bennett


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Randall K. Bennett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per the deletion of numerous other LDS church authorities. As with them, this article doesn't have enough sourcing; all we've got is a bio from the church (not independent) and a few fleeting mentions in other sources. Frankly, this is more poorly sourced than other LDS general authority articles that have been deleted. p b  p  23:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Vojen's excellent argument on the subject of deletion of general authorities whose prominence is considered "temporary" and "questionable at best". No one has put up a convincing argument against Vojen's argument, except to say that it ignores GNG, which he freely admits when citing this argument. Just because there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources doesn't mean an article shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. I am concerned about readers who come here for information about general authorities and fail to find Wikipedia pages on general authorities. Should they be denied the information they seek simply because it lacks independent sourcing? I don't think so. I believe ignoring GNG for a higher purpose of allowing information to stand is a good idea. I also still am convinced that we do articles a great disservice by nominating them for deletion rather than working together to discuss and resolve the issues that exist with them. No one has offered a satisfactory reply to this concern as yet. I also believe there is such a thing as being overzealous or overanxious to delete articles before attempting to make them better. I believe this to be a grave mistake. I will not cease to plead for caution in deletion nominations because of this concern. That being said, I recognize that I may be in the minority in feeling this way. I will abide by the decision of the consensus. But, as always, I would urge all to be courteous in their discourse as they discuss issues relating to the subject of deleting this article. This will likely be my only comment on the issue because I have no desire to get into a debate or to argue with my fellow editors over policy matters. Whatever happens, I take comfort in knowing that I have done what I could to preserve articles such as these. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OMG, how is saying that Vojen/your argument ignores GNG not a convincing argument? GNG is the major guideline that governs AfDs.  Lacking of independent sourcing is always an acceptable reason to delete an article; ignoring GNG is generally a bad idea.  p  b  p  13:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete. This subject fails WP:GNG. I'm open to changing my opinion if he meets a criterion for inclusion that I'm unaware of, but that has not been demonstrated. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I can find no sources other than church materials (not third-party), blog posts (not reliable), and short announcements of speaking engagements (not notable). And the answer to "Should they be denied the information they seek simply because it lacks independent sourcing?" is emphatically YES. That's the rule for inclusion in Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 14:17, 26 September 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.