2087:
remain in effect until revoked by another general authority in equal or higher rank. Rarely does this happen unless the
Seventy is on a special assignment, but that is the nature of the office. They are also asked to speak in General Conference, but unlike the Apostles who are generally invited to speak at least once every six months, most seventies probably will only speak once every 5-10 years. When they do speak their words are treated as authoritative, and their sermons will be studied and are often made the topic of discussions in congregations around the world, but the sermons are usually not as closely studied as are the words of the Apostles, and the lower frequency of the sermons means there are fewer available to study. The only real difference between the First and Second Quorum is duration. The Second quorum serves for five years, the First Quorum serves until given emeritus status at age seventy. The other distinction is that notable members of the Second Quorum are typically called to serve in the First Quorum after being released, so the First Quorum is probably more "notable" from a Knowledge perspective as well.
919:
about
Martinez is relevant because he is the first General Authority Seventy to be called from the Caribbean Area. I also believe that the Ochoa article has relevance because he first served in the general presidency of the Young Men before the time of his call. However, I also recognize that the consensus has ruled to delete the five articles above, and that a consensus to delete will likely result from the Dyches article, as well as the articles mentioned above. You may find this hard to believe, but I am not on Knowledge all day every day. This means I only have a limited period of time per day to see what changes have been made and to give my opinion on items in question that concern me. I believe that these articles can and should be improved and that sources independent of the Church can be found. But it's clear my opinion doesn't make a difference and doesn't amount to much. So, at the outset, I would say that, since I have expresed an opinion, this will likely be my only comment. I would encourage all those involved in this discussion to be courteous and respectful, even as opinions differ. Thanks. --
2034:- As I initially started writing this I was leaning toward delete, but as I started hashing out the arguments, I now lean toward keep. I am not an expert on all the nuances of Knowledge notability criteria, but it seems to me that generally speaking we need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The LDS sources are sufficiently reliable. There is a question as to their independence, but I'm willing to ignore that for now (for reasons that will be shown below). My biggest problem is that the coverage doesn't seem significant. The articles for most of these guys are sourced from a single article, which is usually the equivalent of the church's press release stating that the person has been put in the new position, with minimal biographic data to add some flavor. With a little digging some individuals appear significant for other reasons (for example,
2051:
issue here, so while independent sources are not required to prove notability, they may be needed to verify claims if the only information available on an academic is on that academic's website. The LDS sources do appear sufficiently reliable to verify the information claimed, even if not sufficiently independent to provide notability). Religious officers are a weird blend of politician and academic in that they can have a significant impact on people through their quasi-executive, judicial, and legislative powers, they are clearly authorities in their fields, and most of this comes by virtue of their office and not necessarily from what they did before they got there. I think we should adopt similar guidelines with respect to the Latter-day Saints as exists for the
2095:). This is partly because the assumption is that sources exist, but may not always be readily accessible, but the fact is the office itself seems to be the deciding factor, not an assumption about sources. But even the source issue could easily apply to these officials. The LDS church keeps an extensive archive, and if one wanted one could certainly research the primary sources to analyze the specific activities of these individuals while serving in the office. Primary sources wouldn't provide a basis for notability (secondary sources are the rule), but if we accept notability based on the office then the primary sources could be the basis of beefing up the articles on these individuals.
2079:, and possibly the Auxiliary Presidencies. Stake pesidents and bishops are clearly too low on the totem pole to be considered notable by virtue of their office. Though not decisive, they also serve as lay leaders on a part-time basis. Mission presidents are full-time, generally held in slightly higher prestige, but essentially at a similar rank to a stake prsident as far as actual authority goes. (I suppose a mission president may be slightly more likely to be considered notable for their work if they are the first person to bring the church into a new country.) The real debate here surrounds the question of whether Seventies should be notable by virtue of their office and nothing more.
2083:
Presidency and the Quorum of the
Tweleve), but this power does not appear to have ever taken effect, and members of these quorums are only considered "local authorities" who serve on a part-time and temporary basis. Their names are not generally known in the church, even in the local areas where they are considered authorities, their sermons are rarely recorded or repeated, and their directions and policies are rarely implemented outside of the individual congregations where they fulfilled a specific assignment, such as reorganizing a stake. The exception would be those members who also serve in an Area Presidency as part of their call.
1341:(which are all directly controlled and/or owned by the LDS Church) and few LDS-themed blogs/websites, but not much else outside of these. So I'm guessing the argument for deletion is sound. I notice that some of them are pretty new to the hierarchy; it's possible that in time some things could happen that would lead to more coverage in other sources. (I have been interested in editing these, so I'm not 100 percent unbiased—I don't have strong opinions as to whether all of them should exist or not, but if they do exist, I've been willing to work on cleaning them up somewhat since they are often a bit of a mess when first written.)
944:. I disagree that more time would help find significant independent coverage in all or nearly all of these cases, at least searching for information among online sources. Serious researchers/journalists with a travel budget could dig up obscure/old local coverage of some people, but that's unlikely for these articles. I also disagree with your reasoning on Martinez & Ochoa; they may be notable in the generic non-Knowledge sense, but if they didn't attract notice of independent sources, don't meet WP's notability criteria. ––
2091:
just those who have actually spoken in
General Conference (making them and their words the targets of a much higher level of scrutiny and probably public figures on the specific issue in most common law jurisdictions)? What about those seventies who served in Area Presidencies (where they played an active policy making role rather than waiting for an assignment)? In other cases (such as a Catholic Bishop) the concensus apperars to be that they are always found notable, even in the absence of sources. (See
2071:. These individuals speak at least twice a year to the entire church and make visits to various congregations around the world on an ongoing basis. If for no other reason than their significance within their own church, these individuals should probably be treated like academics or politicians, and the issue with these individuals shouldn't be notability, but verifiability. I would also suggest the same for members of the
1746:, and the responses suggest that there is no literal automatic notability, but that terms like that are intended as a shorthand for "very likely to be found notable" based on the significant independent RS coverage found for similar article subjects. So far, significant independent RS coverage was not found for similar nominated article subjects, so there was no reason to refrain from nominating these subjects.
2038:- a similar individual who was recently deleted for the same above reasons might have been kept for his involvement in the CA Prop 8 debate, but I'm late coming to these discussions, and that apparently wasn't considered at the time he was deleted), but the sources used in these articles don't seem to constitute significant coverage.
2098:
Again, to summarize, because of the breadth of the actual authority of these individuals, and the way that their words are studied and cited as authoritative when they do speak to a larger audience (especially the
General Conferences sermons of the First and Second Quorum members), I think there is a
2066:
would probably meet the notability criteria by virtue or their office similar to politicians. These individuals almost all have extensive news coverage from LDS and non-LDS sources, but even in the absence of significant coverage, the impact of these individuals on the membership of the LDS church is
1061:
I know that one is, but there has been other coverage, the links of which are now unavailable, but which appeared in the print copy. As I mentioned above, even when an independent source reproduces a non-independent press release, I think it bears some significance as to notability of the subject. If
2090:
As a quasi-legislative body of significant weight in the LDS church whose individual members are held in such high regard that their every word is studied and analyzed, I think seventies can be considered per se notable. Would this apply to all quorums, just the First and Second, just the First, or
2050:
might also apply. Academics can be notable if they are recognized authorities in their fields (being a member of a prestigious board is sufficient to meet this criteria) and their fields are notable, even if there is not significant coverage from independent media sources (verifiability becomes the
1139:
s site; perhaps you need to subscribe, or perhaps they did an upgrade and didn't put archives online. If it becomes make-or-break, I'll contact the paper for help. I Googled more extensively (nice unusual name!), and found no significant coverage except material generated by Church-owned entities.
1797:
In general (and I realize that this comment is more suited to the proposed RfC than this discussion)—I think that members of the 2nd Quorum of the
Seventy are far less likely to be WP notable than some of the other LDS Church general authorities, like apostles. For starters, 2ndQ members are only
2086:
On the other hand, members of the First and Second
Quorums are considered "general authorities", meaning they can go to any congregation in the world and they automatically have the right to take control of the meeting, remove and replace local leaders, and even give policy directives that would
1281:
Huh. All-in-all, I'm still in favor of keeping this one, but I can also recognize that it's a relatively weak case when everything is considered together. So my keep would be a "weak keep", as they say. Maybe it's a case of him being somewhat notable within Samoa and
Western Samoa but not really
918:
could be found given an appropriate amount of time. I still maintain that currently-serving general Church leaders are relevant article topics and that the articles should be worked on to improve them before straight up nominating them for deletion. I also maintain in particular that the article
2082:
Members of the Third through Eigth
Quorums of the Seventy (or however many quorums there are now) theoretically have the potential to play a policy making role for the entire church (the church is governed by the combined consensus of all of the Quorums of the Seveny in the absense of the First
1738:
Six "second Quorum" biographies were considered individually over the past two months, all resulting in deletion. Later nomination discussions repeated the same arguments, and nominating them individually just seems inefficient for all involved. Individual articles can be still be considered
1824:
The
Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that observation is not possible without an effect on the object of observation. This means that there is no such thing as an independent observer. For wp:notability, this means that even if we had Martians or the Watson of
1450:
Who's comment is this "so?" directed to? JPL or me? I made my comment solely to point out that JPL's same rationale for wanting Martinez discussed separately apparently could apply to Malm. I wasn't commenting on the strength of the argument or adding support to it.
1776:, are you volunteering to start this RfC? Jgstokes and Johnpacklambert have mentioned an RfC, but it's been two months since the first general authorities were AfDed, and they haven't done it. Also, what would be your venue for this RfC? The GNG talk page?
1579:
because it is "owned or supported by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", does this mean we can't use the Washington Times because it is "owned or supported by the right wing", and we can't use the Washington Post for left-wing sourcing? Our
1626:
says "'independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", and a basic dictionary definition of affiliated is "(of a subsidiary group or a person) officially attached or connected to an organization".
802:
Redirection to the "Second Quorum" list section above is an option instead of deletion. I favor deletion as I don't see the benefit to redirection in this case; searching for a name on Google or typing it in Knowledge will still get you to the list page.
913:
I am trying to be understanding about all these articles being nominated for deletion. But I don't believe any Knowledge editor has the right to nominate a bunch of articles at once. I still believe that independent sources that satisfied
780:
1091:
lead me to the that conclusion. "We require that all articles rely primarily on 'third-party' or 'independent sources' so that we can write a fair and balanced article..." I'd take a moment to read them if you haven't before.
1106:
I have read them, thx. I think the guideline as written is probably ambiguous as to what exactly it means for WP notability when a reliable source reproduces a non-independent press release. I would argue that if that is
161:
1631:
is "officially attached" as a subsidiary of the LDS Church, and thereby affiliated with it; Deseret Management Corp's board of directors are all LDS Church general authorities. You might want to seek more opinions at
1325:—and this is just a gut suspicion rather than anything I've actually confirmed—is that there probably is not enough in sources to make the others notable. I can see that there's a fair bit of coverage the
1039:, somewhat confusingly attributed at the bottom to "Newsroom", which is the name of the publication the LDS Church used to issue the press release. (Or technically, Intellectual Reserve, Inc., which owns
2041:
However, there are exceptions where the coverage is not required. (Coverage creates a presumption of notability, but it is not necessarily sufficient or required.) There is a per se rule with regards to
1798:
temporary general authorities, not lifetime ones. Some of them are only in the position for five years or so. Unless they did something that made them notable before becoming a 2ndQ member (like maybe
1496:
958:
Jgstokes, you're being somewhat disengenuous. Here, you argue "I don't believe any Knowledge editor has the right to nominate a bunch of articles at once." In the past, you've argued that they
1180:
1132:
as one source (more than one is the requirement). Unfortunately I couldn't find them; the cited dead-link articles aren't on archive.org, and don't seem searchable/retrievable from the
2067:
significant enough to make them notable. Church members will reference statements of these top authorities in a manner similar to the way American attorneys will cite Justices of the
1753:
be literal automatic notability for LDS leaders, it's implausible that such a policy would be enacted at this time, and a "procedural keep" to consider such a change is unwarranted.
1697:- I think we need an RFC on Mormon church leaders as there is no consensus as to which, if any, posts imply automatic notability. It's a bit unfair to gang nominate like this.
825:
870:
155:
1267:
about his helping his parents prepare for an overnight visit by a prophet (I'd call it not significant, but read it and see; he's referred to as just Vince in the story). ––
52:. As is common with mass nominations, it would be better to nominate them individually and thus I am closing no consensus with no prejudice to immediate re-nomination here
2052:
1920:
No, the nomination specifies that there is specific coverage, but it isn't in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Therefore, how much of it there is is irrelevant.
1484:
846:
832:
818:
2055:. General guidelines for the notability of LDS hierarchy would answer the question for all of the above candidates for deletion and the previously deleted candidates.
1071:
I can think of other reasons, but even if it's because the editor finds the subject notable, and may connote some notability in the generic sense, my interpretation of
839:
1115:
other stuff that indicates notability, then it's at least a further confirmation of notability, if nothing else. In any case, this is just one of the examples of the
811:
114:
1401:
These are important religious leaders. Martinez should definately be consdiered seperately because he is the first general authority to date from the Caribbean.
890:
940:, I appreciate your constructive opinions. Bundling multiple deletion nominations together is an established practice covered in the AfD guidelines at
1000:, which is a kind of "newspaper of record" for Samoa. He's definitely a notable person within Samoa and American Samoa. (Some of the coverage in the
121:
87:
82:
1488:
1119:
reporting on Haleck's activities, and the others aren't reproduced press releases, so I think there's still a good argument that he's notable.
290:
285:
91:
1492:
520:
515:
474:
469:
382:
377:
294:
1171:
1036:
1239:
OK. I found several more minor mentions using "vince haleck" rather than "vincent"; mostly one-sentence business tidbits: he & brother
750:
745:
658:
653:
612:
607:
524:
478:
386:
74:
1029:
1008:
reports on such items is at least somewhat significant, though. Other news outlets in the Pacific have also done similar things, such as
754:
704:
699:
662:
616:
336:
331:
277:
2092:
1743:
708:
507:
461:
369:
340:
1606:
No guidelines say which specific sources can be used in this case, and interpretions of the guidelines vary. However, I'd say while
737:
645:
599:
428:
423:
244:
239:
176:
2047:
1967:
691:
432:
323:
248:
143:
1806:), I think it's quite unlikely that they will become WP notable for things they do during the short time they are in the 2ndQ.
566:
561:
17:
570:
415:
231:
216:, Lds.org, etc.), but because of the subjects' positions within the church, the sources are not independent of the subjects.
2043:
1991:
1778:
200:. Significant coverage occurs in publications owned or supported by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (
1739:
separately, and opinions and results can be split as seems appropriate. I don't see anything unfair about this approach.
553:
1898:
The nomination stipulates that we have significant coverage and argues that the topic is not wp:notable. This defines
1526:
1004:
amounts to little more than regurgitation/repackaging of LDS Church press releases. I do think that the fact that the
137:
1996:
1927:
1854:
1783:
1722:
1670:
1467:
1434:
1382:
1305:
969:
2108:
2026:
2005:
1976:
1938:
1911:
1890:
1865:
1838:
1810:
1792:
1762:
1733:
1706:
1681:
1658:
1645:
1597:
1563:
1503:
1478:
1455:
1445:
1422:
1410:
1393:
1345:
1321:
I haven't taken the time to go through the other ones very carefully and search for possible sources. But it's my
1316:
1286:
1276:
1234:
1212:
1123:
1101:
1066:
1056:
1016:
980:
953:
928:
902:
882:
862:
56:
2126:
2076:
2022:
1907:
1886:
1834:
1633:
1593:
1406:
40:
133:
78:
1932:
1859:
1727:
1675:
1472:
1460:
It was mostly to JPL, because he's claiming that being an important LDS leader is sufficient for inclusion.
1439:
1387:
1310:
974:
511:
373:
281:
781:
List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Second Quorum of the Seventy
649:
603:
183:
1971:
1163:
1143:
465:
327:
1062:
the person or subject was deemed by the source to be of no consequence, why reproduce the press release?
70:
62:
2122:
1922:
1849:
1717:
1665:
1560:
1462:
1429:
1377:
1300:
964:
741:
419:
36:
695:
503:
365:
1256:
641:
595:
2063:
2018:
1963:
1903:
1882:
1830:
1618:
may have political biases, they are adequately independent sources for purposes of notability, while
1589:
1514:
1402:
795:, or if there you feel differently about certain articles, clarify which your votes refer too (e.g.,
319:
53:
2072:
1807:
1655:
1452:
1419:
1342:
1293:
1283:
1231:
1120:
1063:
1025:
1013:
411:
192:
Subjects (Anderson and the bundled biographies of LDS Church leaders below) are not notable in the
169:
687:
2068:
1985:
But the sources aren't reliable, independent sources. And it hasn't even been established there
1663:
And an article would have a lot more credence if it had sources other than the Washington Times.
924:
273:
235:
149:
1075:
is it shouldn't count toward Knowledge's notability. Maybe I'm misinterpreting its intent, but
2035:
1702:
1585:
991:
898:
878:
457:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2121:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1155:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2099:
good argument to be made for keeping articles about the whole group being discussed herein.
2059:
1803:
1549:
1499:
1264:
1012:.) At this stage, I haven't investigated the others in enough detail to warrant an opinion.
941:
733:
557:
1650:
A more analogous situation (though one that is admittedly imperfect) might be in using the
1427:
So? Reliable (non-LDS) sources or it goes. Saying "they are important" doesn't undo GNG.
1260:
2104:
1951:
1758:
1641:
1522:
1272:
1208:
1097:
1052:
1009:
949:
858:
806:
For other AfD discussions of biographies from the same "Second Quorum" list section, see:
1043:, used it; they're an LDS Church subsidiary). Press releases are specifically listed in
1799:
1088:
1084:
1896:
Procedural keep all WP:NPASR without prejudice to merge, except keep O. Vincent Haleck
1189:
2014:
1899:
1878:
1228:
1080:
1044:
937:
920:
915:
227:
193:
1771:
1698:
1581:
1576:
1244:
894:
874:
197:
771:
725:
679:
633:
587:
541:
495:
449:
403:
357:
311:
265:
108:
1623:
1495:. There's material about presumably different Per Malms, including a physician (
1415:
1240:
1076:
1072:
549:
1829:
fame writing newspapers, we would still not have truly independent observers.
2100:
1754:
1654:
as a sole source for articles about the Unification Church or its leadership.
1637:
1518:
1483:
I found no independent sigificant coverage of Malm. Two independent articles (
1268:
1223:
1204:
1093:
1048:
945:
854:
1552:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1255:
to develop family land, and issued a joint statement with his bro when their
1826:
1375:
Not enough independent, reliable sourcing to justify keeping any of these
196:
sense; I did not find significant independent coverage of the subjects in
1715:
Why? In the absence of any policy, they fail GNG and should be deleted.
1491:) had one sentence listing newly appointed elders, apparently taken from
222:: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
2046:
who may or may not have significant news coverage, and the criteria for
2013:
Keven  At Knowledge, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability with
1252:
1111:
you have, then the person is probably not notable, but if you have that
1507:
1248:
1588:, so can an editor next argue that this is "too close" for comfort?
1227:
in American Samoa also printed the same 2013 news release verbatim:
2115:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1877:
At Knowledge, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability with
1584:
article says that there is a joint operating agreement with the
996:
Haleck has received significant and consistent coverage in the
1160:(book): 1 sentence: "O. Vincent Haleck is governing director."
1148:(book): 1 paragraph (a sentence, and a quote from Haleck's
1742:
I inquired about the "automatic notability" argument at
1298:, what are your thoughts on the rest of these fellows?
767:
763:
759:
721:
717:
713:
675:
671:
667:
629:
625:
621:
583:
579:
575:
537:
533:
529:
491:
487:
483:
445:
441:
437:
399:
395:
391:
353:
349:
345:
307:
303:
299:
261:
257:
253:
104:
100:
96:
168:
2093:
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Religious_leaders
1744:
Knowledge talk:Notability (people)#Religious leaders
826:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Gregory A. Schwitzer
1559:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1165:
Foreign Consular Offices in the United States, 1996
1622:and publications owned by the LDS Church are not.
1186:Name listed in long sentence with other Seventies.
779:All the subjects are included in the list section
871:list of Christianity-related deletion discussions
847:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Dyches
833:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Terence M. Vinson
819:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kevin S. Hamilton
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2129:). No further edits should be made to this page.
840:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jairo Mazzagardi
1847:I think that's misunderstanding the principle.
812:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Larry Y. Wilson
1241:made execs at family's Quality Inn being built
783:. Please indicate whether your opinion is to
182:
8:
889:Note: This debate has been included in the
869:Note: This debate has been included in the
891:list of People-related deletion discussions
1950:- All due to the availability of sources.
888:
868:
1184:, "Church calls new general authorities"
1217:I have access to the paper copy of the
1157:Pacific Magazine, Volume 21, Issues 1-5
1418:says he is the first one from Sweden.
1168:(book): ~1 sentence directory listing.
1047:as not independent from the issuer. ––
1194:has an article from LDS Church-owned
7:
1249:was going to join a retirement board
1989:sources for all of these articles.
1152:article "Having the Vision to Do").
1037:unmodified LDS Church press release
849:Result: Delete (closed 6 July 2014)
24:
1257:KFC franchise temporarily closed
1251:but his brother did instead, he
1177:~1.5 paragraph passing mention.
797:Delete all except Koichi Aoyagi
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1145:Parenting with Spiritual Power
1:
821:Result: Delete & redirect
2146:
1749:While you may think there
1140:Some material considered:
1128:If that's true, I'd count
2109:20:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
2077:Presidency of the Seventy
2027:03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2006:20:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
1977:18:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
1939:14:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
1912:03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
1891:03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
1866:14:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
1839:03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
1811:00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
1634:Knowledge talk:Notability
1394:13:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
1317:13:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
1287:23:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
1277:07:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
1253:co-sued the US government
1235:05:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
1213:05:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
1124:01:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
1102:01:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
1067:00:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
1057:00:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
1017:23:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
981:13:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
954:08:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
929:07:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
903:01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
883:01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
863:21:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
57:10:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
2118:Please do not modify it.
1793:21:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
1763:21:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
1734:19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
1707:18:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
1682:05:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
1659:05:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
1646:18:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
1598:08:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
1575:So if we cannot use the
1564:20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
1479:04:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
1456:21:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
1446:13:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
1423:09:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
1411:06:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
1346:05:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
1282:outside of the islands.
1245:longline fishing license
1191:WorldWide Religious News
32:Please do not modify it.
2017:, not wp:notability.
1881:, not wp:notability.
1502:), screenplay author (
1493:this LDS press release
1265:half a page in a book
1261:2-sentence quote here
1173:BloombergBusinessweek
2064:Quorum of the Twelve
1221:articles. FWIW, the
220:MULTIPLE NOMINATIONS
2073:Presiding Bishopric
1695:Procedural Keep All
1175:"Drowning Kiribati"
71:Wilford W. Andersen
63:Wilford W. Andersen
2069:U.S. Supreme Court
2053:Catholic hierarchy
274:Randall K. Bennett
48:The result was
2036:Kevin S. Hamilton
1975:
1586:Salt Lake Tribune
1566:
1531:
1517:comment added by
1403:John Pack Lambert
1243:, his boat got a
1182:The Davis Clipper
992:O. Vincent Haleck
905:
885:
504:Larry R. Lawrence
458:O. Vincent Haleck
366:Bradley D. Foster
54:Black Kite (talk)
2137:
2120:
2060:First Presidency
2004:
2003:
1999:
1994:
1961:
1958:
1955:
1937:
1935:
1930:
1925:
1864:
1862:
1857:
1852:
1804:Richard Wirthlin
1791:
1790:
1786:
1781:
1775:
1732:
1730:
1725:
1720:
1680:
1678:
1673:
1668:
1558:
1554:
1530:
1511:
1506:) and an actor (
1477:
1475:
1470:
1465:
1444:
1442:
1437:
1432:
1392:
1390:
1385:
1380:
1315:
1313:
1308:
1303:
1297:
1138:
1035:you added is an
979:
977:
972:
967:
835:Result: Redirect
828:Result: Redirect
775:
757:
734:Kent F. Richards
729:
711:
683:
665:
642:James B. Martino
637:
619:
596:Hugo E. Martinez
591:
573:
545:
527:
499:
481:
453:
435:
407:
389:
361:
343:
315:
297:
269:
251:
198:reliable sources
187:
186:
172:
124:
112:
94:
34:
2145:
2144:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2127:deletion review
2116:
2058:Members of the
2019:Unscintillating
2001:
1997:
1992:
1990:
1956:
1953:
1933:
1928:
1923:
1921:
1904:Unscintillating
1883:Unscintillating
1860:
1855:
1850:
1848:
1831:Unscintillating
1808:Good Ol’factory
1788:
1784:
1779:
1777:
1769:
1728:
1723:
1718:
1716:
1676:
1671:
1666:
1664:
1656:Good Ol’factory
1590:Unscintillating
1547:
1512:
1473:
1468:
1463:
1461:
1453:Good Ol’factory
1440:
1435:
1430:
1428:
1420:Good Ol’factory
1388:
1383:
1378:
1376:
1343:Good Ol’factory
1311:
1306:
1301:
1299:
1291:
1284:Good Ol’factory
1232:Good Ol’factory
1136:
1121:Good Ol’factory
1064:Good Ol’factory
1026:Good Ol’factory
1014:Good Ol’factory
975:
970:
965:
963:
748:
732:
702:
686:
656:
640:
610:
594:
564:
548:
518:
502:
472:
456:
426:
410:
380:
364:
334:
320:J. Devn Cornish
318:
288:
272:
242:
226:
129:
120:
85:
69:
66:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2143:
2141:
2132:
2131:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
1980:
1979:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1915:
1914:
1893:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1842:
1841:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1800:James O. Mason
1767:
1766:
1765:
1747:
1740:
1710:
1709:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1601:
1600:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1556:
1555:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1396:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1294:Good Olfactory
1263:, and there's
1219:Samoa Observer
1201:
1200:
1199:
1187:
1178:
1169:
1161:
1153:
1130:Somoa Observer
1117:Samoa Observer
1113:in addition to
1031:Somoa Observer
1020:
1019:
998:Samoa Observer
986:
985:
984:
983:
956:
932:
931:
907:
906:
886:
851:
850:
843:
842:Result: Delete
836:
829:
822:
815:
814:Result: Delete
777:
776:
730:
684:
638:
592:
546:
500:
454:
408:
362:
316:
270:
190:
189:
126:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2142:
2130:
2128:
2124:
2119:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2096:
2094:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2065:
2061:
2056:
2054:
2049:
2045:
2039:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2015:wp:prominence
2007:
2000:
1995:
1988:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1978:
1973:
1969:
1968:Contributions
1965:
1960:
1959:
1949:
1946:
1945:
1940:
1936:
1931:
1926:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1894:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1879:wp:prominence
1876:
1873:
1872:
1867:
1863:
1858:
1853:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1823:
1820:
1819:
1812:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1787:
1782:
1773:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1731:
1726:
1721:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1693:
1692:
1683:
1679:
1674:
1669:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1630:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1578:
1574:
1571:
1570:
1565:
1562:
1557:
1553:
1551:
1546:
1545:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1466:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1454:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1421:
1417:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1397:
1395:
1391:
1386:
1381:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1347:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1309:
1304:
1295:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1285:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1229:
1226:
1225:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1185:
1183:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1167:
1166:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1141:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1065:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1032:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
993:
988:
987:
982:
978:
973:
968:
961:
957:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
936:
935:
934:
933:
930:
926:
922:
917:
912:
909:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
887:
884:
880:
876:
872:
867:
866:
865:
864:
860:
856:
848:
844:
841:
837:
834:
830:
827:
823:
820:
816:
813:
809:
808:
807:
804:
800:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
773:
769:
765:
761:
756:
752:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
710:
706:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
664:
660:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
618:
614:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
572:
568:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
526:
522:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
480:
476:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
434:
430:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:Randy D. Funk
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
388:
384:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
342:
338:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
296:
292:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
250:
246:
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:Koichi Aoyagi
225:
224:
223:
221:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2117:
2114:
2097:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2057:
2040:
2031:
2030:
2012:
1986:
1952:
1947:
1895:
1874:
1821:
1750:
1694:
1651:
1629:Deseret News
1628:
1620:Deseret News
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1582:Deseret News
1577:Deseret News
1572:
1561:NorthAmerica
1548:
1513:— Preceding
1398:
1372:
1339:Deseret News
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1222:
1218:
1196:Deseret News
1195:
1190:
1181:
1172:
1164:
1156:
1149:
1144:
1133:
1129:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1079:'s sections
1040:
1030:
1005:
1001:
997:
989:
962:be bundled.
959:
910:
852:
805:
801:
796:
793:Redirect all
792:
788:
784:
778:
688:Adrián Ochoa
219:
218:
213:
209:
206:Deseret News
205:
201:
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
117:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
2044:politicians
1612:Wash. Times
1416:Per G. Malm
1373:Delete all:
1327:Church News
550:Per G. Malm
202:Church News
156:free images
1652:Wash Times
1608:Wash. Post
1224:Samoa News
789:Delete all
2123:talk page
2048:academics
1827:Jeopardy!
942:WP:BUNDLE
895:• Gene93k
875:• Gene93k
37:talk page
2125:or in a
1573:Question
1550:Relisted
1527:contribs
1515:unsigned
1399:Keep All
1134:Observer
1041:Newsroom
1006:Observer
1002:Observer
938:Jgstokes
921:Jgstokes
911:Keep all
785:Keep all
115:View log
39:or in a
2032:Comment
1875:Comment
1822:Comment
1772:Carrite
1699:Carrite
1616:SL Trib
1335:Liahona
1089:WP:SPIP
1085:WP:WHYN
1033:article
845:Closed
838:Closed
831:Closed
824:Closed
817:Closed
810:Closed
751:protect
746:history
705:protect
700:history
659:protect
654:history
613:protect
608:history
567:protect
562:history
521:protect
516:history
475:protect
470:history
429:protect
424:history
383:protect
378:history
337:protect
332:history
291:protect
286:history
245:protect
240:history
214:Liahona
162:WPÂ refs
150:scholar
88:protect
83:history
2075:, the
1954:Occult
1900:merger
1751:should
1614:, and
1331:Ensign
1150:Ensign
1087:, and
1081:WP:GNG
1045:WP:GNG
1028:, the
960:should
916:WP:GNG
755:delete
709:delete
663:delete
617:delete
571:delete
525:delete
479:delete
433:delete
387:delete
341:delete
295:delete
249:delete
210:Ensign
194:WP:GNG
134:Google
92:delete
2101:Vojen
1755:Agyle
1638:Agyle
1519:Agyle
1323:sense
1269:Agyle
1247:, he
1205:Agyle
1094:Agyle
1049:Agyle
1010:Scoop
990:Keep
946:Agyle
855:Agyle
791:, or
772:views
764:watch
760:links
726:views
718:watch
714:links
680:views
672:watch
668:links
634:views
626:watch
622:links
588:views
580:watch
576:links
542:views
534:watch
530:links
496:views
488:watch
484:links
450:views
442:watch
438:links
404:views
396:watch
392:links
358:views
350:watch
346:links
312:views
304:watch
300:links
266:views
258:watch
254:links
177:JSTOR
138:books
122:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
2105:talk
2062:and
2023:talk
1964:Talk
1957:Zone
1948:Keep
1908:talk
1887:talk
1835:talk
1759:talk
1703:talk
1642:talk
1624:WP:N
1594:talk
1523:talk
1489:here
1485:here
1407:talk
1273:talk
1209:talk
1098:talk
1077:WP:N
1073:WP:N
1053:talk
950:talk
925:talk
899:talk
879:talk
859:talk
768:logs
742:talk
738:edit
722:logs
696:talk
692:edit
676:logs
650:talk
646:edit
630:logs
604:talk
600:edit
584:logs
558:talk
554:edit
538:logs
512:talk
508:edit
492:logs
466:talk
462:edit
446:logs
420:talk
416:edit
400:logs
374:talk
370:edit
354:logs
328:talk
324:edit
308:logs
282:talk
278:edit
262:logs
236:talk
232:edit
170:FENS
144:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
1987:are
1972:Log
1902:.
1802:or
1510:).
1109:all
799:).
184:TWL
113:– (
2107:)
2025:)
1970:•
1966:•
1910:)
1889:)
1837:)
1761:)
1705:)
1644:)
1636:.
1610:,
1596:)
1529:)
1525:•
1487:,
1409:)
1337:,
1333:,
1329:,
1275:)
1259:.
1230:.
1211:)
1203:––
1100:)
1092:––
1083:,
1055:)
952:)
927:)
901:)
893:.
881:)
873:.
861:)
853:––
787:,
770:|
766:|
762:|
758:|
753:|
749:|
744:|
740:|
724:|
720:|
716:|
712:|
707:|
703:|
698:|
694:|
678:|
674:|
670:|
666:|
661:|
657:|
652:|
648:|
632:|
628:|
624:|
620:|
615:|
611:|
606:|
602:|
586:|
582:|
578:|
574:|
569:|
565:|
560:|
556:|
540:|
536:|
532:|
528:|
523:|
519:|
514:|
510:|
494:|
490:|
486:|
482:|
477:|
473:|
468:|
464:|
448:|
444:|
440:|
436:|
431:|
427:|
422:|
418:|
402:|
398:|
394:|
390:|
385:|
381:|
376:|
372:|
356:|
352:|
348:|
344:|
339:|
335:|
330:|
326:|
310:|
306:|
302:|
298:|
293:|
289:|
284:|
280:|
264:|
260:|
256:|
252:|
247:|
243:|
238:|
234:|
212:,
208:,
204:,
164:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
2103:(
2021:(
2002:p
1998:b
1993:p
1974:)
1962:(
1934:p
1929:b
1924:p
1906:(
1885:(
1861:p
1856:b
1851:p
1833:(
1789:p
1785:b
1780:p
1774::
1770:@
1757:(
1729:p
1724:b
1719:p
1701:(
1677:p
1672:b
1667:p
1640:(
1592:(
1521:(
1508:4
1504:3
1500:2
1497:1
1474:p
1469:b
1464:p
1441:p
1436:b
1431:p
1405:(
1389:p
1384:b
1379:p
1312:p
1307:b
1302:p
1296::
1292:@
1271:(
1207:(
1198:.
1137:'
1096:(
1051:(
994:.
976:p
971:b
966:p
948:(
923:(
897:(
877:(
857:(
774:)
736:(
728:)
690:(
682:)
644:(
636:)
598:(
590:)
552:(
544:)
506:(
498:)
460:(
452:)
414:(
406:)
368:(
360:)
322:(
314:)
276:(
268:)
230:(
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
118:·
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.