Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael R. Ash

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 12:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R. Ash

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC:

Many various WP:BEFORE source searches, including searches for book reviews, are not providing independent significant coverage of the subject or his works in reliable sources.
I found a couple of book reviews in primary sources, which in this case, are publications owned and controlled by the LDS Church, but primary sources are not usable to establish notability.
Otherwise, there's not much out there at all in terms of usable sources for Wikipedia's purposes.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to exist solely to publicize the subject, given its creation and maintenance by some highly-focused editors and its links to sites promoting the subject's work. So in that respect the article is a violation of policy (WP:NOTPROMO). As to notability (assuming that there is a notability claim in the article, which is not obvious), search confirms the nominator's assessment that the subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so the subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG anyway. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would help if there is significant independent coverage (i.e. outside of those associated with the church) of the author, but there isn't, and I can't see reviews for his books outside of the publications related to the church. Fails WP:NAUTHOR.Hzh (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete written like a puff piece, not notable --DannyS712 (talk) 01:52, 25 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.

Michael R. Ash

zproxy.org