Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Smith (Speaker)


 * 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. &mdash; Joseph Fox 00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hank Smith (Speaker)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article for a speaker of questionable notability. References are all primary or affiliated with the subject or his church. Little independent coverage found in independent sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Mike, thank you so much for your input. How is this reference any different from the "John Bytheway" or the "Bradley R. Wilcox" reference?  The references meet the independent guidelines written by Wikipedia: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent."  None of the sources listed in the article were created or resulted from advertisements by Mr. Smith.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsuser (talk • contribs) 04:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC) ''


 * Comment A Google Search of "Hank Smith" brings up a myriad of topics and titles for Mr. Smith. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsuser (talk • contribs) 04:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think this is a promotional article.  The Deseret News and Deseret Book are perfectly fine references.  One is a major newspaper and the other is his publisher.  The Daily Universe' is BYU's student paper.  The other references don't matter as they don't deal with Smith as they review his books or mention him in passing.  That being said, the Deseret News articles are reviewing his material and Deseret Book isn't an independent reference.   Then we are just left with the Daily Universe article that could be argued as not an independent reference as Smith is studying and teaching at BYU.  I can find blogs, reviews of his books and speeches, and announcements of his talks.  However, I'm unable to find any reliable references (WP:SOURCES) that talk about him, therefore delete. Bgwhite (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Another independent reference has been added (Davis County Newspaper). Deseret Book is not Smith's publisher, his publisher is Covenant Communications.  All of the Deseret News articles, reviews or otherwise, are independent.  The article meets Wikipedia's guidelines.  Similar to this article, the "John Bytheway" article (referenced above) references only BYU publications, Bytheway also works for BYU.
 * Comment Covenant is owned by Deseret book.  The Deseret News articles are indeed independent.  The problem being is in order to meet WP:GNG, there has to be "significant coverage" and "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail".  The Deseret News article has a review of his book as its subject and not Smith.  So, it's a good reference to confirm he wrote a book, but does nothing to satisfy WP:GNG.


 * I just looked at the Bradley R. Wilcox and John Bytheway articles. Without doing much research, the Wilcox article should also be nominated to be deleted as it suffers the same problems as Smith's article.  The Bytheway article has no reliable references either.  Bytheway has done an impressive amount of publications that might make him notable.  After the outcome of this debate, I'll look at these two articles more closely to determine if they should be brought up for deletion.  Bgwhite (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In reading the "significant coverage" guideline, we also read that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It seems to me that the Deseret News reviews meet that standard. Similarly, the articles repeatedly mention Smith's background and talk about him being a well-known speaker for the LDS faith. Therefore, I think the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.218.170 (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — 174.52.218.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree with the above comment. The article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsuser (talk • contribs) 04:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — Ldsuser (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete I have to say that I consider the Deseret News articles in this particular case as promotional and unreliable, and its reviews are the best of the refs. Any number of such references does not provide evidence for notability  DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete Just because the reviews are positive does not make them promotional or unreliable. Again, please refer to the Bradley R. Wilcox and John Bytheway articles for the precedents. — 174.52.218.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Those other articles are not precedents. Pretty much anybody can create an article on anything on Wikipedia.  Whether the article should exist depends on it meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.  See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a difference between this article and the Wilcox and Bytheway articles. To delete this article and not the others seems to me to be inconsistent application of Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.218.170 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.