Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton L. Cutler


 * 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton L. Cutler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Several source searches have demonstrated that this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Most sources that cover him are primary sources, because they are published by or affiliated with the Mormon Church, such as Ensign and Deseret News, which does not qualify notability. Non-primary sources are only providing passing mentions. North America1000 06:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I only have the energy for an lol on this one. No, I can do this, because I care. Delete. Light keep I've reconsidered --J. M. Pearson (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - multiple obituaries demonstrate notability. The Washington Post isn't affiliated with the Mormon Church. StAnselm (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi : The obituaries in the references section are all published by primary sources, which does not serve to demonstrate notability. I haven't been able to find an online link for The Washington Post article. Thus far, only one independent secondary source appears to be available, but more than one that provides significant coverage is needed to qualify notability. North America1000 06:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that we can't find the source online is neither here nor there - all it needs is for the source to exist. Also, I don't think that Deseret News can be called a primary source. StAnselm (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't Facebook for every eager beaver looking for recognition. My brother saved 2 people's lives. I wouldn't consider encumbering WP with his good deeds. It seems that everyone that held a job or took a crap is a candidate for Wikipedia. Why even have a review process?  Let's just make it an orgy of informational love and togetherness. Why not, it's all knowledge. Just nothing anyone cares about.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 06 Oct 1991: A2. ), and more similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete No explanation required.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck clpo13(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post obituary, available via a Nexis subscription, has 78 words. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How about when he was alive, did they say anything about him then? Just curious. Practically everyone gets an obit. Is that the new minimum criteria, dying? Wouldn't surprise me.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that "practically everyone" gets an obituary in the Washington Post, but such a short obituary is no great claim of notability in itself. I'm not offering any opinion about keeping or deleting this, but just providing some evidence about that source that I can see via my library's subscription to Nexis. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep We have been through this type of discussion before. The Deseret News was not controlled in any way by Cutler, and it is a regularly published paper. It is indepedent enough from Cutler to use as a source. The Washington Post obituary is fully indepdent of Cutler, and thus fully useable as a source, having an obituary is such a major paper is a sign of significance. I think even the Ensign article is more indepdent than is given credit for, but that may be a harder argument. However generally having an obituary in a leading national paper, such as the Washington Post or New York Times, is alone considered enough to show someone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You made a good point about obits in those papers. But there's no NYT's obit from what I can see, and I checked the WP site and found nothing. I checked "Notable" obits and the regular search--nothing. Maybe their online database doesn't go back that far, not sure. You'd think if he was that notable there'd be something in "notables." But really, who cares? I don't mean to sound crass, I'm sure this was a very nice and important man to those around him.  But is that enough?  He was a "regional representative, stake president, stake president’s counselor, and bishop," and he got a university education.[ref]  Do you know how many millions of people share titles and credentials of a similar stature?  If this passes the test it's hard to imagine what couldn't. This belongs on a private memorial webpage, not an encyclopedia.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have already said above, the Washington Post obituary does exist, but is not viewable without a subsciption, and it is 78 words long. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, I'd read that and it slipped my memory. But you didn't rebut my other point about notability.  The article's subject is too run of the mill to me. I see a huge slippery slope ahead with this type of material. But maybe it's inevitable that WP should morph into a Wiki-Everything where nothing is off limits.  I mean, it's not like we're wasting paper. Kind of like the "internet of things," but with knowledge.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't rebut your point because, again as I said before, I have no interest in rebutting your point, but just want to make sure that this discussion proceeds on the basis of fact rather than prejudice. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Cutler was not "run of the mill", he was in the senior leadership of the LDS Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt this person was "important" to the people around him. And he probably did have some impact in his profession, but only in the same way that 100's of millions of others do every day, week, and year of their lives. And see, that's my point.  Isn't that a good criteria for knowing if it's worth it?  I mean, where do you draw the line with these people?    The world would  be shocked if Barbara Streisand didn't pop up on WP, but I don't think anyone expects to see every mid-level achiever on planet Earth. There was a time when having your name in an encyclopedia meant something. But maybe the new technology has rendered that idea obsolete. It could be that the new paradigm is that ALL people are worth a page on the knowledge of life. Every loving grandmother, every cute baby, every hard working high-schooler, anyone that's ever lived can have a listing in Wikipedia.  Because that's where this is headed.  We got "Busty" up for deletion, she's the one crushing beer cans with her breasts. If that isn't proof enough for my point then I don't know what is. --J. M. Pearson (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)--J. M. Pearson (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Generally we keep articles about high-ranking members of religious groups such as this (bishops and high-ranking clergy are comparable marks). Normally we find that after extensive search of online and offline sources that there is more than enough to surpass WP:GNG.  Since this individual died in 1994, it's reasonable to assume that the sources will primarily be off-line and not on-line.  I see no reason to not assume good faith at this point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And of course that all makes sense. It's not at all surprising that "high-ranking members of religious groups" would be deserving of an article. But I would argue, this article here does not fit in that category of distinguished notables. But to be fair, if you could please direct me to some comparable examples then I would be happy to concede the point. As it is I see no real proof of notability beyond this person's own sphere of influence. Thanks. --J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You can check the Category:American United Methodist bishops or Category:American leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Category:Members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy (LDS Church) or Category:American Roman Catholic archbishops or Category:American Christian clergy to find good examples.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Given what you've provided I have no choice but to reconsider. I guess I have yet to discover the full depth and breadth of WP in the area of notable persons. In retrospect it would have been nice had I taken the time to make a thorough check first. I've changed my above uninformed opinion to a "light keep."  Thanks for your help.  I'll try to be more circumspect in the future.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep while the LDS Second Quorum is arguably borderline (I tend to consider it += to bishop because it is such a large faith group) Cutler passes routine ANYBIO standards such as obit in major daily (LDS QUORUM MEMBER, CLINTON CUTLER, DIES; The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 10 Apr 1994)  and what appears to be a wire service obit that appeared in  the Washington Post, the Seattle Times the Orlando Sentinel and other papers, in addition, of course, to the obit that ran in Deseret.  There was also coverage of his career during his lifetime  (First Presidency Releases, Thanks Four for Service: [NW Edition]), (First Presidency Releases, Thanks Four for Service: [NW Edition], The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 06 Oct 1991: A2.


 * 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.