- 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. Jayjg (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chad H Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no indication that this individual is notable. The two LDS refs are not independent of the subject. A bishop, in this context, is "a part-time lay minister". A search for wider coverage revealed nothing. I42 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Note from user johnhiltoniii--I have not adequately explained in Wikipedia what Chad Webb does as administrators of Seminaries and insitutes. This is a worldwide program with 800,000 students. What should I do to help show how he as a person (or really, the position of administrator) merits an entry on Wikipedia? Note that his peers within the church educational system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Educational_System) Kim Clark and Cecil Samuelson both have Wikipedia pages. Johnhiltoniii (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:johnhiltoniii is the author of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - from the info provided this person is simply a bishop/administrator, not unlike any other church official. sources are not sufficient to establish notability. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Non-notable administrator, fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kim Clark and Cecil O. Samuelson, Jr. have entries because they are both notable for being leaders of a university. An administrator post in a church program alone is not sufficient on its own to establish notability. That said, delete the Chad Webb article. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some changes to the article to reflect the above feedback. I noticed that seminaries and institutes is mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Educational_System#Seminaries_and_Institutes_of_Religion. Perhaps a separate entry on Chad Webb is not needed. My affiliation with the church educational system obviously biases me. I leave it for you to determine. Thank you. Johnhiltoniii (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that's not going to be enough. What is needed are sources that talk about him and his contributions. – ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Basically he is a church bureaucrat. Even though he administers a large department, that's not enough to make him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While we are at it, let's look into the notability of John Hilton III, an article apparently describing User:Johnhiltoniii. The article calls him a "religion professor" at BYU, but also a doctoral candidate there - so it's unlikely that "professor" is the right job description for this subject. The BYU staff directory [1] seems to list him as director of a youth program, with an off-campus work address. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll express no opinion about this article, but I agree that someone should probably PROD the Hilton article, at least. I'll note, btw, that he said elsewhere on wiki that he completed his Ph.D. since the article about him was created, this year, in fact. It's my strong impression, btw, that Hilton seems to me to be very candid, and also quite respectful of the rules that he's familiar with. Like most new users, though, he doesn't yet understand notability. – Ohiostandard (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG by not having received significant coverage in reliable sources. As an aside I would suggest that John Hilton III may well be notable as he actually has been covered in reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2010 (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.