Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Don Ladd

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. Sandstein 12:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. Don Ladd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC, as per WP:BEFORE source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the arguments gven in simlar discussions. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Regarding the above !vote:

• It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
• Its thesis is utterly unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about W. Don Ladd, not some other subject.
• Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
• There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see this article passing WP:GNG at all, I also think that Johnpacklambert has created a huge amount of these articles a lot of them failing current basic GNG and seems to have a conflict of interest with wikipedia over Latter Day Saints. Govvy (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment None of the personally-directed accusations are necessary to discuss the notability of the article's subject, so it's probably more fruitful to focus on whether there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, since that is the basis for nomination. It might also be helpful for Johnpacklambert to clarify what "arguments above" means, since the only thing above that comment is a nomination for deletion and some delsorts. Perhaps a copy/paste to the wrong discussion? Bakazaka (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant independent coverage found. I don't see any convincing claim of notability, or any real prospect of being able to source an article properly. --Michig (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.