Deletion of John M. Madsen

Comment: It seems most if not all of the sources are closely associated with the LDS church and are therefore probably ed. Some  sources would be nessicary for this article to be kept
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS||WP:THIRDPARTY)

Comment: although it looks like what the problem here is not unbiased sources (please..... this is hardly an argument at all as sources are not expected to be entirely NPOV.... that is instead what the article writing here on Wikipedia is striving for).  The issue here is mainly one of , where it appears too much of the article is coming from primary sources and not secondary sources.  That, however, is not grounds for deletion and certainly not a lack of notability, but rather pushing for more outside sources.  In this case, however, it may be something where you need to look for more local sources of information... for example, Deseret News is not the only newspaper in Utah that covers stuff happening in the LDS Church.  IMHO notability is clearly met with this particular topic, although seeking out more outside sources would certainly make a better article.  This does not reach the level of requiring an article deletion here, but rather an editorial note and discussion on the talk page instead.  Very clear consensus from general policy discussions is that articles heavy on primary sources should not for this reason be considered for deletion.  Perhaps not considered featured articles (or even good articles) either, but deletion is not the solution here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)