Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk (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. Nakon 04:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Randy D. Funk
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was kept six months ago on the strength of someone dumping a bunch of blogposts and other non-reliable sources into the AfD, while ignoring GNG and claiming that the article should be kept in spite of it. I believe keeping it is a mistake. There are still no sources in the article independent of the LDS Church. p b  p  13:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Strong delete, fails GNG and other applicable SNGs, the nominator is enterely correct about the previous AfD, which was kept on the basis of clearly biased LSD sources, oddly marked as "independent". With respect, Funk lacks coverage in independent sources, and most if not all the coverage on Mormon sources is not even secondary, significant or reliable.  Cavarrone  06:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  01:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Renominated by same nominator after the last discussion ended in a "keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason in and of itself. How 'bout some reasoning as to why the past close was correct (which, IMO, it wasn't).  p  b  p  23:48, 30 March 2015 (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 00:50, 31 March 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.