Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary P. Gillum


 * 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. ✗ plicit  13:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Gary P. Gillum

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Being librarian-emeritus of any university doesn't establish notability. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that have any tendency to establish notability. The extant sourcing in the article is weak altogether. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk !  10:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Indiana. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk !  10:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The sources in the article are, from my perspective, just over the bar to pass WP:GNG. Probably better sourcing from non-LDS-affiliated sources would help some more. -- Jayron 32 13:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per below. -- Jayron 32 16:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * what sources in the article are you seeing that satisfy GNG? The current sources all appear to be of compromised independence. Just going down the list the collection oh his papers is not independent, the profile on the Social Networking Archives Cooperative is not independent, a YouTube lecture given by the subject is not independent, his profile at the Religious Studies Center is not independent, his profile at FairMormon is not independent, his profile at the The Interpreter Foundation is not independent, his listing as a board member is not independent, his profile at the Utah Baroque Ensemble is not independent, the coverage from the Utah Valley Symphony is not independent, once again his papers are not independent, the bio section of book written by Gillum is not an independent source. That is the entirety of the sources currently used, not a single one count towards GNG. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, like Bishonen I'm failing to find significant independent coverage of the subject. Admittedly that is surprising, I had thought that it would be possible to find some given the length of the subject's career but if it exists its in a format which is not making itself presentable to us. If anyone finds such coverage (perhaps offline or in in a newspaper archive) please ping me and I will reconsider my vote. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Religion. Skynxnex (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Google Scholar seems to substantiate that there are a lot of published sources, but I'm not sure if this is enough to meeet WP:PROF or not. Mormons are generally regarded as pariahs in intellectual and educational circles, so the lack of RS'es commenting on him may be systemic bias. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just not true (at least in the United States), I've had multiple Mormon professors at secular universities who published widely in the mainstream press. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Same. Back in the mid 1990s, I had multiple Mormon chemistry professors, one of whom was the department chair, and they were well published and well respected.  I went to school no where near Utah.  Mormon theologians may not have much standing among the greater community of Christian theologians, but I've never heard that faithful practitioners of Mormonism faced any particular kind of lack of standing in any other field.  -- Jayron 32 18:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted, please consider my caution applied in this narrower scope: He's a librarian at BYU writing about Mormon theology, apparently. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the article is somewhat interesting, none of the sources used establish notability, and a quick search for additional potential sources to help establish notability has turned up nothing. At this time, I don't see any way this article can be kept since it doesn't meet any notability requirements. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a few newspaper articles just now, but I'm not sure if that's enough to establish notability. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's my quick take on the sources you just added:
 * Payson Chronicle is the most convincing as it's independent and pretty detailed. But I'm not sure how much weight small-town newspapers are given on Wikipedia.
 * Springville Herald is also independent, but I have the same question about local newspapers.
 * American Fork Citizen doesn't establish notability because it's just a passing mention. I wouldn't use that as a source.
 * Mormon History is reliable, independent, and from a reputable and independent publisher; but the mention of Gillum is only passing, even though it's acknowledging that he did important work.
 * ~Awilley (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Per comments above. Sources are primarily or closely related to the subject. All publications are specialized religious rather than reliable sources. Clearly doesn't meet general notability or scholar criteria. Banks Irk (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that being a "specialized religious" source (or specialized any source) doesn't mean the source isn't reliable. Just for future reference. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I can only see measuring this person against NACADEMIC. His books and articles are very little cited (the most with 29 cites, many with 1 or 2). The dilemma is not having a yardstick to measure academic attention in the category of theology, much less specific Mormon theology. I add that a number of his works are bibliographies, which take a lot of effort but generally do not themselves create new knowledge. Lamona (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment  I am feeling your dilemma. I can't help but think that a scholar who has edited or contributed to over 100 books from legitimate publishers has met the standard for notability, even if their field of expertise is narrow. I started to look for reviews and then realized the challenge--books about Mormon theology, published by a Mormon press, reviewed by Brigham Young's journals, and cited by articles in journals of Mormon thought. If the book reviews were independent, I would argue to update and keep. Lacking that, this article comes across as a vanity piece written by well-meaning family or friends. Can someone with access to a university journal database double check my findings on book reviews? Rublamb (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Rublamb, Gillum wrote some 50 short book reviews for Library Journal between 1993 and 2008. The search results are difficult to cite in a reference though. He also reviewed Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context and Significance for Journal of Religious and Theological Information in 2005. He wrote two entries for the Encyclopedia of Religion, Communication, and 	Media in 2006. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you happen to have a list of the published reviews of Gillum's works? —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't, but I did summarize two reviews of the first volume of the collected works of Nibley over on the Hugh Nibley page. I could probably dig up reviews for vols 2 and 3, but they are probably more about Nibley than Gillum. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Regretfully, weak delete. Gillum does not appear to pass WP:NPROF per above commments. He also does not appear to pass WP:NBASIC. He is the subject of significant coverage in The Payson Chronicle, an independent reliable WP:NEWSORG. I'm concerned about Springville Herald; the coverage reads like a press release smaller newspapers tend to directly republish mundane "man appointed to local org" press releases of this sort fairly often, making me doubt the source's independence in that particular piece. As such, I don't see evidence that he is the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. As such, I don't see evidence that WP:NBASIC is met from the sources presented by others, and my own online searching is not able to find anything that would contribute towards WP:NBASIC. The fact that BYU has his papers in its archive for academic study means that he's probably going to get there once someone actually publishes a substantial work about those papers and what Gillum did when creating them, but he doesn't yet appear to meet the relevant notability criteria; the article appears to have been made WP:TOOSOON and we can't judge notability based on the exogenous chance that someone is going to publish something about him at some point in the future. For that reason, I also have no objection to restoring this article into the draftspace or userspace via once additional significant coverage of Gillum is published. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 22:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.