Deletion of Wilford W. Andersen (3rd nomination)

Comment: as failing  per the excellent analysis of the sources by NA1000
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: per coverage of his activities over many years, there is, unsurprisingly, much more than the articles I listed above as examples.  to take just one, The Arizona Republic, the newspaper of record in one of America's larger states, reported his role in opposing gay marriage.  Two separate sotries mention his large donation.  The fact that he and his wife gave $100,000 to the "anti" campaign in , even if it is brief, and even if he was smart enough not to comment.  I do not support keeping most of the many articles Northamerica1000 has recently brought to AfD on individuals who have held prominent positions within LDS. I run searches and support keeping only those whose activities have gotten . Like this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: The quotations for the sources above are passing mentions (e.g. "Wilford Andersen, a former church spokesman, contributed $100,000 along with his wife. He did not return a phone call seeking comment."), which is not , or quotations (e.g. "Elder Wilford Andersen, who oversees 153 temples worldwide, said..."), which are primary in nature, unless more content about the subject is actually available in them. ''Church News'' remains a primary source; it is literally owned by the LDS church. See also: , where it states in part
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:SPIP)

Comment: that the 1st AfD was a mass nomination that closed sans consensus.  The 2nd nomination (2014) was a unanimous "Keep".  And also '''Note''' that while sources on the page are not independent, they there are reliable (correction: ''there are reliable sources extant,'' (LDS church holds an ownership interest in Deseret News.)  But , and independent sources do exist
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP)

Comment: The sources in the article are either not independent (''Church News'') or not significant coverage. The additional coverage presented above is trivial and routine, and trivial mentions and quotes do not add up to significant coverage, even if a sufficiently dedicated editor can turn them into sentences. Still no significant coverage ''of the article's subject'' in multiple, independent, reliable sources, so subject does not pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)