Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard N. Armstrong


 * 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-creation with better sources.  A  Train talk 14:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Richard N. Armstrong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic who does not meet WP:PROF. Note: there was also another academic named Richard N. Armstrong, who is possibly notable. But that Richard N. Armstrong was a biochemist; this Richard N. Armstrong is a social scientist. No evidence of notability that I could find for this one. The article contains no citations and was clearly edited by someone with a COI based on some of the personal info contained. Bueller 007 (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a quick search didn't turn up anything for this particular individual. I would happily change my position if it were presented.  As the article is written and from what I can find, the subject fails WP:GNG and any other notability measure I can think of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No RS is a dealbreaker. Agricola44 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I did turn up this review of his study of the rhetoric of David O. McKay. It is not enough to show notability, but might be a first step. The book has also been referenced in some later biographies of David O. McKay, such as is Gregory A. Prince and William Robert Wright in David O. McKay and the rise of Modern Mormonism. However Prince and Wright only mention this book in footnotes, not the text. On the other hand, Prince and Wright didn't write a true biography, more an account of the McKay administration that focused mostly on controversial topics. No one has yet written a full-length, full life, scholarly biograhy of David O. McKay. This despite the fact he is one of the 3 most important figures in LDS history in the 20th-century, vying for this position with Spencer W. Kimball and Gordon B. Hinckley, although Ezra Taft Benson was during the first half of the McKay era the most famous Mormon bar none, and his impact on the Church was also very high. Armstrong's work is cited in most later works on McKay, including Mary Jane Woodger's edited volumne of the early correspondence of McKay and his wife (some of which dates to before their marriage), but I have not yet found enough information to show that Armstrong is notable. If he ever comes out with his more broad study of the rhetoric of Latter-day Saint prophets, and if that receives wide scholarly attention, than it might be possible to argue that Armstrong is notable, but I have not yet unearthed sources that really suggest this. The reivew I found is not enough, especially since it is about the book and not Armstrong, nor are the few references to the book. Ill keep looking, but am not very hopeful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I've weighed this issue a lot, tried my best to find sources, and see that we have nothing coming close to the bar established for notability of academics. His most significant book came out in 1993, and so there might be hard to find with quick internet searches reviews, but unless someone shows there were lots of good, indepth reviews in several different academic journals, I just do not see Armstrong being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment if offline sources are found later, we can easily create the article again.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2017 (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.