Deletion of Yoshihiko Kikuchi

Comment: Looking at the sources, the ''Journal of Mormon History'' has had very limited distribution, thus a limited readership, according to http://www.worldcat.org/title/journal-of-mormon-history-vol-1-29-1974-2003/oclc/78860855&referer=brief_results World Cat here and http://www.worldcat.org/title/journal-of-mormon-history-volumes-1-through-33-1974-2007/oclc/665170696&referer=brief_results here. An LDS member making good within the church, then being mentioned in a church history book and a Mormon encyclopedia, plus a 2-sentence mention on a page in ''Black and Mormon'', a 184-page book, do not add up in establishing notability. Here is the actual mention in ''Black and Mormon'': "The official church auspices were indicated by the keynote speaker, Elder Yoshihiko Kikuchi of the Seventy, a Japanese national. Incongruous as that may seem in a black LDS American gathering, Elder Kikuchi's remarks were very well received as sensitive and supportive." I reiterate: It continues to fail 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as subject meets . I have added text, sourced to the Numano article cited above, that provides another perspective and helps offset the hagiographic tendencies inherent in relying on church sources to write an article about a church leader
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: besides the Deseret story about the temple in Japan, where Kikuchi's birthplace is mentioned, there's virtually no biographical coverage of him in current or a Google search that I can find.  I did find a lawsuit against the church that he was part of, albeit in a minor role. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-court-of-appeals/1098208.html Most of the background info in the article now is unsourced or stems from a primary source (a dead link interview podcast). If there was some accepted policy that says a general authority is automatically notable, like a top league sports player, that would be a different story. The general authority article itself a bit weak on sourcing, using many primary sources, with the Mormon Encyclopedia also doing heavy sourcing duty. Unless consensus is that being general authority itself is enough for a notability pass, this has to be a delete based on 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per nom. Clearly , which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Notability has not been shown. Fails  and does not meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO||WP:GNG||WP:BASIC)