Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard N. Holzapfel


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Richard N. Holzapfel

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Based on Talk:Richard N. Holzapfel, it appears that the subject of the article is requesting deletion of the article. It doesn't appear from the current article text that he qualifies as a public figure so WP:BIODELETE could apply. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Latter Day Saints, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine,  and Utah.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Honor Request to Delete -- I think that the article could survive AfD, but the subject is not such a sufficient public figure to preserve against stated wishes. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject has had public roles over the course of his life and written “over 45 books”. Doesn’t seem like a request for deletion should be honored here. Thriley (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merely writing books doesn't make an author notable. There has to be some indication that the books were significant or influential. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless better sources can be found. All the sources are from the LDS's own websites which are too close to the subject. "Over 45 books" isn't even sourced nor are any of the books listed. — Iadmc  ♫ talk  20:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per apparent WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and lack of notability. All non-primary sources available appear to be affiliated church publications; not seeing any secondary and independent sourcing. The number of books written is not germane to the criteria for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, doesn’t meet WP:GNG standards, and few WP:RS citations. Easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * * Delete - The sources are not really enough to show notability outside of the LDS organization. Delete. WmLawson (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2024 (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.