Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 September 2
2016 September 4 >

3 September 2016

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Larry Y. Wilson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was deleted with the contention that Wilson is not notable as one of many general leaders of a multi-million member worldwide Church because he had only received sufficient coverage in the Deseret News. It was argued that the Deseret News is not an independant source. Since then, the argument has been made that the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. The Deseret News and LDS Church News have since been determined to be sufficiently independent of the LDS Church. Additionally, on August 1 of this year, keeping with the Church's practice of rotating responsibility, Kent F. Richards was succeeded by Wilson as the executive director of the Church Temple Department, a position that puts him in direct responsibility within the Church for all temple-related developments. But here's the kicker: Wilson's new assignment, though later confirmed by the Church, was originally posted in an independent Philly newspaper that is about as far away from being biased towards the LDS Church as anyone can get.

Click here to read that article. There may be some who complain that this article isn't about Wilson. I want it clear that I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that a sentence in this article makes reference to Wilson and his position in the LDS Church. That's in the third paragraph down, midway through the first line. All these facts combine, in my mind, to prove the fact that Wilson has been referred to as notable by a source completely independent of the LDS Church. For these reasons, I would like to see the article restored. Either that, or I would like it restored to my user name space so I can work on getting it fully compliant with GN guidelines. And yes, before you ask, I did take this up with the admin that closed the deletion discussion. He said I would need to post here about this for the situation to be addressed. That being said,thanks for taking time to read and vote on this. I appreciate my Wikipedia editorship and just want to ensure that this article can have a chance to come back. Thoughts? -- Jgstokes ( talk) 06:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse deletion, meh to userfication There are two arguments being made here. First, that the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. From their about page, they are, Owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Surely that disqualifies them as being independent. Yes, I know there have been arguments that even though they are owned by the LDS, the navigate an independent editorial course. I don't buy that argument. They say their mission is to be a leading news brand for faith [...] oriented audiences. That doesn't sound independent to me. The second argument is that mentioning somebody's name in an article (i.e. the philly.com source) establishes notability. It does not. That's what we call a passing mention, as opposed to significant coverage. I have no particular objection to userfication, but the problem identified during the AfD was not that that the article was badly written, but that there weren't sufficient independent sources. What you need to be doing is researching better sources, and not having the old text shouldn't be a blocker for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the argument put forward for deletion was that the subject doesn't have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I don't think [1] changes this - yes it's a reliable independent source, but it isn't significant coverage of the subject. He's quoted a few times on the subject of LDS temples. Actual coverage of the subject himself is limited to stating his job title, which is not significant. I don't agree with the view that Deseret News is independent of the subject, as the subject occupies a senior position in the organisation which owns the newspaper. The citations in question were actually to Church News, a supplement dedicated entirely to the LDS church, which "reinforces the church message" according to our article. My views on userfication are similar to RoySmith's and I would advise looking for better sources rather than trying to rewrite the content. Hut 8.5 13:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • endorse I'd likely have !voted to keep as I think that the Deseret News is independent enough for purposes of meeting WP:N (any local paper there would be covering him IMO) if not for getting controversial material. But the opinion that it's not independent enough is reasonable and the coverage that is clearly independent isn't as in-depth as many think is needed. The consensus was for deletion based on reasonable policy-based arguments, so no real choice but to endorse. Hobit ( talk) 20:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I think it's unlikely that we would want to overturn the decision and restore the removed content. But we also wouldn't normally see a two-year-old decision as an obstacle to creating an article when the person has received a significant promotion in the meantime. I recommend that you ensure that you have genuinely, properly independent sources (note plural) linked from the article before you re-create it.— S Marshall T/ C 20:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse: The nominator is incorrect in saying that Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. No policy or guideline says that. Some LDS officials' articles have been kept or closed as no consensus...and others have been deleted. IMO, the deletion of those articles is the correct move: Deseret News is (indirectly) owned by the LDS Church and has policies that pledge to toe the LDS line. It is clearly a paper that attempts to promote the activities of Mormons, and lacks the independence to properly assess whether or not they are notable. Furthermore, I'd note that while Wilson is quoted in the article, the article doesn't really say much, if anything, about him per se. The nominator fails to make an argument why the original AfD was flawed; the Mormon church simply being big doesn't exempt mid-level officials from GNG. p b p 00:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I think this is one of those occasions when our notability guidelines hinder building the encyclopedia rather than help. However, people at AFD are fully entitled to acquiesce in the face of poor guidelines, or treat them as firm rules, or interpret the subjective criteria in a way that limits our range of articles. I think the close was (well) within discretion though I'd have accepted no consensus as well. Thincat ( talk) 11:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm certainly not going to defend our byzantine set of rules as being perfect. We, do, however, have the WP:IAR trump card. I reject the argument that Deseret News is independent. I also reject the argument that the passing mention in philly.com counts for anything. If one wanted to go there, a stronger argument, IMHO, for keeping this, would be, I know these sources don't meet our rules, but let me explain why we should have this article anyway.... I'm not arguing that, I just pointing out that such an avenue for argument exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith ( talk • contribs)
  • Overturn I think this is an overuse of "independent". The subject is not the LDS, but this particular individual, and it is independent of him. (I would of course regard the newsletter of a particular local congregation not independent of the head of that congregation, but to carry it this dar is like refusing to use Catholic sources for notable catholics. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
DGG, I think what you're saying about source independence goes to far in the other direction. If an article is about an LDS official or an LDS entity, its subject is indeed the LDS. Theoretically, you're advocating something where any LDS official (or any other LDS topic) could be sourced only with the Deseret News or other sources connected with the LDS church. As for Catholicism, particularly recent Catholicism, I feel the same way: Catholic leaders need sources independent of the Catholic Church. p b p 20:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree that LDS sources do not necessarily prove that a person connected with that church is notable, but they do at the very least prove that someone has a particular position in the church. If there is a presumption that everyone in that position is notable. I think there is or should be that presumption here. DGG ( talk ) 13:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Why are we here, again? I think I just read an argument that the reason for the original deletion in 2014 no longer applied, and/or that the subject has received more coverage. If so, just go make a new article (Userify->Draft->mainspace) which addresses and resolves the original AfD, no DRV needed. I agree with DGG that the Deseret News is sufficiently independent of this article subject to be used as an RS in a BLP, FWIW, but I don't think that 1) DRV is necessary, or that 2) overturning a 2014 AfD decision is needed before re-creating an article with 2 years of further coverage. Jclemens ( talk) 21:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Oh, yes, and my "endorse" above is merely to say I think the AFD was closed properly and I was not implying we shouldn't have an article. The reason we are here is that the nominator very properly asked the deleting admin for undeletion and was directed here. [2] So, if I had been misunderstanding what we are being asked for, I would allow userification. Thincat ( talk) 09:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Lemme be fully above-board about this: if the DRV is close as endorse/no consensus/userfy but the article is still recreated, I will again AfD it. I believe the only course defensible in policy is that it should be deleted and stay that way. The only difference between when it was deleted, PROPERLY, and now is that there's an article that quotes him but doesn't really describe him. Deseret News wasn't independent of LDS leadership in 2014 (as RoySmith notes above, they freely admit to being a cheerleader for the LDS) and it's still not now. Reliability is a red herring in this case, as it is a different issue from independence. p b p 13:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Personal attack based on misreading of another editor's comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You're going to nominate it for deletion again if the consensus votes to restore it? That doesn't sound like someone with an anti-LDS statement at all. The LDS Church News may be Church-owened, but that doesn't mean it's controlled or monitored by Church leadership. It would be much like a Catholic-owned publication being used as a primary source for Catholic information. Oftentimes, the Church is the best source about itself, as others may be inclined to extol it or condemn it. I believe there is sufficient grounds for restoring this article, and I believe PBP's comment above to be indicative of the fact that he or she is incapable of impartiality and should be excluded from further input on this discussion. I realize that puts a target on my back for anyone, including and especially PBP, to accuse me of bad faith, and I would never assume to pass judgement on anybody. But if you look at PBP's AfD nominations, you will see a clear anti-LDS bias. All I am asking is for a clean-cut definition of whether or not the Deseret News is a reliable source and that the article be restored to my user space. With such clear bias against the Church, I know I have little chance of this happening, but I am hoping there are enough sensible people here who see that people of my faith are being unfairly targeted by PBP and other such editors who are either afraid of, disaffected towards, or extremely hostile about LDS topics. What's next: a blanket deletion of all LDS articles regardless of their importance to those seeking information about the Church? The America I live in still observes freedom of religious coverage and expression, and, indeed, PBP's assertion convinces me that this editor has a clear bias against the Church and that his impartiality is, at best, questionable. What can I say of my own history? I have made it clear from the outset that my main reason for editing Wikipedia is to ensure that accurate information about the Church is preserved. but I have stood by and watched as people like PBP display religious bigotry. The Church is not a stranger to that at all. I just find it hard to believe that anyone who believes this is the land of the free and the home of the brave could object to good articles that inform people about what and why we believe. A cursory glance of my record will show that I have worked on countless occasions to bring LDS-related articles up to WP standards. In the meantime, we have PBP's unreasonable demands and assertions, every one of which demonstrate clearly his or her bad faith and hateful bias. I ask all people who care about preserving freedom to observe and practice religion to stand with me against such bigotry and clear bias. I had on my signature at one point the phrase "We can disagree without being disagreeable." I truly believe that. Recongizing that at times in my dealings with PBP, I have unjustly assumed bad faith, I think his or her statement above speaks volumes about how far he or she can be trusted to be impartial and to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I ask that my comment be seen in light of PBP's unreasonable threat above. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 02:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oddly enough, DRV generally will recommend something be either relisted or sent back to mainspace if there is enough new material that the article wouldn't be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of a deleted article that didn't address the reason for deletion. The bar is pretty low. I personally don't think that bar is passed--the new information that has come out since deletion isn't really all that useful IMO. But even if it does, it's perfectly fine and pretty common for someone to sent it back to AfD for further discussion as to if the totality is now above the (higher bar) of WP:N. So you shouldn't assume a topic bias here--it's just how things work (oddly to an outsider). It's like an appeals court sending a case back to the lower court or dismissing it with leave to refile (happening to the former Governor of Virginia right now). Secondly, the key point here is that we need independent sourcing. I personally think the D. News is probably independent enough to establish notability, but others have disagreed. If this _does_ get relisted, I'll likely chime in with a "keep" !vote. But at the same time, DRV's job is to answer the question A) was this closed in a way that was reasonable given the discussion and B) has anything changed enough to warrant a new discussion. IMO the answer to both of those is no. Doesn't mean I'm right about A or B, just that's my sense and thus how I'm !voting. I think everyone else is using their best judgement in the same way... Hobit ( talk) 03:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • @ Jgstokes:, Above you said, You're going to nominate it for deletion again if the consensus votes to restore it? That's the exact opposite of what I said. I listed every other outcome BUT restore and overturn as grounds for me taking it to AfD. If this is closed as overturn or restore, then I wouldn't take it to AfD. Lemme flip this question around: if an AfD closed as delete, and this DRV affirms deletion as correct, why would you restore it? And why do you insist on calling me a bigot because I'm nominating some poorly-sourced, mid-level LDS leaders for deletion? p b p 04:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_September_3&oldid=1078419712"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 September 2
2016 September 4 >

3 September 2016

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Larry Y. Wilson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was deleted with the contention that Wilson is not notable as one of many general leaders of a multi-million member worldwide Church because he had only received sufficient coverage in the Deseret News. It was argued that the Deseret News is not an independant source. Since then, the argument has been made that the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. The Deseret News and LDS Church News have since been determined to be sufficiently independent of the LDS Church. Additionally, on August 1 of this year, keeping with the Church's practice of rotating responsibility, Kent F. Richards was succeeded by Wilson as the executive director of the Church Temple Department, a position that puts him in direct responsibility within the Church for all temple-related developments. But here's the kicker: Wilson's new assignment, though later confirmed by the Church, was originally posted in an independent Philly newspaper that is about as far away from being biased towards the LDS Church as anyone can get.

Click here to read that article. There may be some who complain that this article isn't about Wilson. I want it clear that I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that a sentence in this article makes reference to Wilson and his position in the LDS Church. That's in the third paragraph down, midway through the first line. All these facts combine, in my mind, to prove the fact that Wilson has been referred to as notable by a source completely independent of the LDS Church. For these reasons, I would like to see the article restored. Either that, or I would like it restored to my user name space so I can work on getting it fully compliant with GN guidelines. And yes, before you ask, I did take this up with the admin that closed the deletion discussion. He said I would need to post here about this for the situation to be addressed. That being said,thanks for taking time to read and vote on this. I appreciate my Wikipedia editorship and just want to ensure that this article can have a chance to come back. Thoughts? -- Jgstokes ( talk) 06:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse deletion, meh to userfication There are two arguments being made here. First, that the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. From their about page, they are, Owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Surely that disqualifies them as being independent. Yes, I know there have been arguments that even though they are owned by the LDS, the navigate an independent editorial course. I don't buy that argument. They say their mission is to be a leading news brand for faith [...] oriented audiences. That doesn't sound independent to me. The second argument is that mentioning somebody's name in an article (i.e. the philly.com source) establishes notability. It does not. That's what we call a passing mention, as opposed to significant coverage. I have no particular objection to userfication, but the problem identified during the AfD was not that that the article was badly written, but that there weren't sufficient independent sources. What you need to be doing is researching better sources, and not having the old text shouldn't be a blocker for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the argument put forward for deletion was that the subject doesn't have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I don't think [1] changes this - yes it's a reliable independent source, but it isn't significant coverage of the subject. He's quoted a few times on the subject of LDS temples. Actual coverage of the subject himself is limited to stating his job title, which is not significant. I don't agree with the view that Deseret News is independent of the subject, as the subject occupies a senior position in the organisation which owns the newspaper. The citations in question were actually to Church News, a supplement dedicated entirely to the LDS church, which "reinforces the church message" according to our article. My views on userfication are similar to RoySmith's and I would advise looking for better sources rather than trying to rewrite the content. Hut 8.5 13:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • endorse I'd likely have !voted to keep as I think that the Deseret News is independent enough for purposes of meeting WP:N (any local paper there would be covering him IMO) if not for getting controversial material. But the opinion that it's not independent enough is reasonable and the coverage that is clearly independent isn't as in-depth as many think is needed. The consensus was for deletion based on reasonable policy-based arguments, so no real choice but to endorse. Hobit ( talk) 20:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I think it's unlikely that we would want to overturn the decision and restore the removed content. But we also wouldn't normally see a two-year-old decision as an obstacle to creating an article when the person has received a significant promotion in the meantime. I recommend that you ensure that you have genuinely, properly independent sources (note plural) linked from the article before you re-create it.— S Marshall T/ C 20:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse: The nominator is incorrect in saying that Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. No policy or guideline says that. Some LDS officials' articles have been kept or closed as no consensus...and others have been deleted. IMO, the deletion of those articles is the correct move: Deseret News is (indirectly) owned by the LDS Church and has policies that pledge to toe the LDS line. It is clearly a paper that attempts to promote the activities of Mormons, and lacks the independence to properly assess whether or not they are notable. Furthermore, I'd note that while Wilson is quoted in the article, the article doesn't really say much, if anything, about him per se. The nominator fails to make an argument why the original AfD was flawed; the Mormon church simply being big doesn't exempt mid-level officials from GNG. p b p 00:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I think this is one of those occasions when our notability guidelines hinder building the encyclopedia rather than help. However, people at AFD are fully entitled to acquiesce in the face of poor guidelines, or treat them as firm rules, or interpret the subjective criteria in a way that limits our range of articles. I think the close was (well) within discretion though I'd have accepted no consensus as well. Thincat ( talk) 11:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm certainly not going to defend our byzantine set of rules as being perfect. We, do, however, have the WP:IAR trump card. I reject the argument that Deseret News is independent. I also reject the argument that the passing mention in philly.com counts for anything. If one wanted to go there, a stronger argument, IMHO, for keeping this, would be, I know these sources don't meet our rules, but let me explain why we should have this article anyway.... I'm not arguing that, I just pointing out that such an avenue for argument exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith ( talk • contribs)
  • Overturn I think this is an overuse of "independent". The subject is not the LDS, but this particular individual, and it is independent of him. (I would of course regard the newsletter of a particular local congregation not independent of the head of that congregation, but to carry it this dar is like refusing to use Catholic sources for notable catholics. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
DGG, I think what you're saying about source independence goes to far in the other direction. If an article is about an LDS official or an LDS entity, its subject is indeed the LDS. Theoretically, you're advocating something where any LDS official (or any other LDS topic) could be sourced only with the Deseret News or other sources connected with the LDS church. As for Catholicism, particularly recent Catholicism, I feel the same way: Catholic leaders need sources independent of the Catholic Church. p b p 20:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree that LDS sources do not necessarily prove that a person connected with that church is notable, but they do at the very least prove that someone has a particular position in the church. If there is a presumption that everyone in that position is notable. I think there is or should be that presumption here. DGG ( talk ) 13:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Why are we here, again? I think I just read an argument that the reason for the original deletion in 2014 no longer applied, and/or that the subject has received more coverage. If so, just go make a new article (Userify->Draft->mainspace) which addresses and resolves the original AfD, no DRV needed. I agree with DGG that the Deseret News is sufficiently independent of this article subject to be used as an RS in a BLP, FWIW, but I don't think that 1) DRV is necessary, or that 2) overturning a 2014 AfD decision is needed before re-creating an article with 2 years of further coverage. Jclemens ( talk) 21:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Oh, yes, and my "endorse" above is merely to say I think the AFD was closed properly and I was not implying we shouldn't have an article. The reason we are here is that the nominator very properly asked the deleting admin for undeletion and was directed here. [2] So, if I had been misunderstanding what we are being asked for, I would allow userification. Thincat ( talk) 09:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Lemme be fully above-board about this: if the DRV is close as endorse/no consensus/userfy but the article is still recreated, I will again AfD it. I believe the only course defensible in policy is that it should be deleted and stay that way. The only difference between when it was deleted, PROPERLY, and now is that there's an article that quotes him but doesn't really describe him. Deseret News wasn't independent of LDS leadership in 2014 (as RoySmith notes above, they freely admit to being a cheerleader for the LDS) and it's still not now. Reliability is a red herring in this case, as it is a different issue from independence. p b p 13:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Personal attack based on misreading of another editor's comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You're going to nominate it for deletion again if the consensus votes to restore it? That doesn't sound like someone with an anti-LDS statement at all. The LDS Church News may be Church-owened, but that doesn't mean it's controlled or monitored by Church leadership. It would be much like a Catholic-owned publication being used as a primary source for Catholic information. Oftentimes, the Church is the best source about itself, as others may be inclined to extol it or condemn it. I believe there is sufficient grounds for restoring this article, and I believe PBP's comment above to be indicative of the fact that he or she is incapable of impartiality and should be excluded from further input on this discussion. I realize that puts a target on my back for anyone, including and especially PBP, to accuse me of bad faith, and I would never assume to pass judgement on anybody. But if you look at PBP's AfD nominations, you will see a clear anti-LDS bias. All I am asking is for a clean-cut definition of whether or not the Deseret News is a reliable source and that the article be restored to my user space. With such clear bias against the Church, I know I have little chance of this happening, but I am hoping there are enough sensible people here who see that people of my faith are being unfairly targeted by PBP and other such editors who are either afraid of, disaffected towards, or extremely hostile about LDS topics. What's next: a blanket deletion of all LDS articles regardless of their importance to those seeking information about the Church? The America I live in still observes freedom of religious coverage and expression, and, indeed, PBP's assertion convinces me that this editor has a clear bias against the Church and that his impartiality is, at best, questionable. What can I say of my own history? I have made it clear from the outset that my main reason for editing Wikipedia is to ensure that accurate information about the Church is preserved. but I have stood by and watched as people like PBP display religious bigotry. The Church is not a stranger to that at all. I just find it hard to believe that anyone who believes this is the land of the free and the home of the brave could object to good articles that inform people about what and why we believe. A cursory glance of my record will show that I have worked on countless occasions to bring LDS-related articles up to WP standards. In the meantime, we have PBP's unreasonable demands and assertions, every one of which demonstrate clearly his or her bad faith and hateful bias. I ask all people who care about preserving freedom to observe and practice religion to stand with me against such bigotry and clear bias. I had on my signature at one point the phrase "We can disagree without being disagreeable." I truly believe that. Recongizing that at times in my dealings with PBP, I have unjustly assumed bad faith, I think his or her statement above speaks volumes about how far he or she can be trusted to be impartial and to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I ask that my comment be seen in light of PBP's unreasonable threat above. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 02:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oddly enough, DRV generally will recommend something be either relisted or sent back to mainspace if there is enough new material that the article wouldn't be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of a deleted article that didn't address the reason for deletion. The bar is pretty low. I personally don't think that bar is passed--the new information that has come out since deletion isn't really all that useful IMO. But even if it does, it's perfectly fine and pretty common for someone to sent it back to AfD for further discussion as to if the totality is now above the (higher bar) of WP:N. So you shouldn't assume a topic bias here--it's just how things work (oddly to an outsider). It's like an appeals court sending a case back to the lower court or dismissing it with leave to refile (happening to the former Governor of Virginia right now). Secondly, the key point here is that we need independent sourcing. I personally think the D. News is probably independent enough to establish notability, but others have disagreed. If this _does_ get relisted, I'll likely chime in with a "keep" !vote. But at the same time, DRV's job is to answer the question A) was this closed in a way that was reasonable given the discussion and B) has anything changed enough to warrant a new discussion. IMO the answer to both of those is no. Doesn't mean I'm right about A or B, just that's my sense and thus how I'm !voting. I think everyone else is using their best judgement in the same way... Hobit ( talk) 03:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • @ Jgstokes:, Above you said, You're going to nominate it for deletion again if the consensus votes to restore it? That's the exact opposite of what I said. I listed every other outcome BUT restore and overturn as grounds for me taking it to AfD. If this is closed as overturn or restore, then I wouldn't take it to AfD. Lemme flip this question around: if an AfD closed as delete, and this DRV affirms deletion as correct, why would you restore it? And why do you insist on calling me a bigot because I'm nominating some poorly-sourced, mid-level LDS leaders for deletion? p b p 04:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_September_3&oldid=1078419712"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE