Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John H. Vandenberg


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

John H. Vandenberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This non-notable subject fails WP:BASIC notability standards. Source searches are only providing name checks and fleeting passing mentions in independent, reliable sources. No significant coverage in said sources appears to exist. Additionally, the article is entirely dependent upon primary and unreliable sources, which do not confer notability. Primary sources found in searches also do not confer notability. North America1000 23:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep We have a reference from the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History a respected encyclopedia edited by multiple scholars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church . Primary sources such as these do not serve to establish notability. Furthermore, multiple sources are required to establish notability, not just one. North America1000 02:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment No, the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history is not a primary source. We have never acceptaed that the published of a book can be used to determine if it is primary or secondary. With books, one needs to look at the whole nature of the production. This is a book with listed authors who are respected scholars in the field and you cannot reclassify it as a primary source just because of who the publisher is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we disagree about the independence of the source. However, as stated above, multiple sources are required to establish notability, not just one . From source searches, it just doesn't seem that the subject has received any coverage that is not somehow affiliated with the LDS church. North America1000 05:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm leery about considering sources that are ultimately published by the organization as reliable secondary sources in situations like this. They can definitely be useful when adding biographical details after notability is established but I don't particularly believe that these sources make a good case for notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete When your job is your notability yet we can’t get any independent sources about you then are you really notable? Trillfendi (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (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.