Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John M. Madsen


 * 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. Although closing as keep, the argument over whether sources such as Deseret News are to be treated as independent in this context is an unresolved no consensus. SpinningSpark 14:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

John M. Madsen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP with no sources independent of from where he draws his notability (the LDS church). Similar poorly-sourced LDS articles (Lino Alvarez and five others) have been redirected p  b  p  15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete It seems most if not all of the sources are closely associated with the LDS church and are therefore probably WP:BIASed. Some WP:THIRDPARTY sources would be nessicary for this article to be kept. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep You cannot claim that Madsen's notability is comparable to the notability of Second Quorum members whose articles you have deleted. This man is still a general authority in the Church's eyes, and he will remain one until his death. See the description of emeritus general authorities here. Third party sources can and should be found, but that will take time. Instead of nominating articles for deletion willy-nilly, why don't you try to help improve the article or discuss issues on the talk page first? Both practices would adhere to Wikipedia policies. This man doesn't have temporary notability, because he is still a general authority. While this article may currently fail GNG, that is not to say it couldn't be edited sufficiently to meet GNG. That's why I suggest holding off on any discussion of deletion until a fair period of time has passed and neutral sources have been found. They do exist and can easily be found, but it will take some time. In the meantime, if this deletion discussion is to continue, I would civil, candid conversation about the article's issues to see if we can resolve them. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jgstokes, if significant independent RS coverage "can easily be found" but will take time, it doesn't sound easy. :-) I searched online, and found significant coverage only by church-owned publications. The notability issue doesn't require resolution of editing issues, it requires existence of these sources. The article has been around six years, which seems like "a fair period of time"; if you want another week or two to go to a library or something, that would be fine, but I don't think it's proper to keep an article based on a belief that the sources exist, without any evidence that they do. Agyle (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added additional sources. However, I think the fact that he was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy should be considered. This is a higher level than the second quorum of the 70, and every discussion ever on a member of the First Quorum of the 70 has resulted in a keep. This places him within the top 85 leaders of the Church at a given time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your "additional sources" are no more reliable than the sources already in the article; i.e., not. He still fails GNG, and should be deleted.  p  b  p  21:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all so, Southern Virginia University is a fully accredited university that is not onwed or in any way controlled by the LDS Church. Your attack on the SVU source can only come out of animus towards Latter-day Saints as a people, and a desire to exclude them from discussions. It is not based on any understanding of policy. YOur antagonistic and rude tone in these discussions, and your constant attacking of those you disagree with is also bad form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The "not in any way controlled" statement is misleading as it is owned by some members of the church rather than the church itself. A preponderance of students and faculty are of the LDS faith; its connections to the LDS church are front and center in the lead, 2) the link in question might not be enough to establish notability regardless of #1.  p  b  p  00:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While your arguments of COI might be workable for institutions controlled by the Church, institutions not at all under the control of the Church do not work for this. You are basically putting forth an argument that would lead to us excluding publications of Historically Black Colleges and Universities as sources for articles on African-Americans. This would lead to Wikipedia excluding articles on people who are not part of the dominant culture even more than it already does. Wikipedia cannot right great wrongs, but it should not adopt policies that exclude sources based on the religious affiliation of their creators. That is the test you propose, not a study of control but a study of religion. Such an attack would not be workable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * HBCUs are nothing like SVU, and you still haven't answered #2. p  b  p  14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Substantial coverage.  First quorum is different than 2nd quorum.  Statements that the coverage is "not reliable", is not correct;  i think someone might mean that the coverage is not sufficiently independent to establish notability, which is different.  There is no serious likelihood that the LDS newspaper is wrong in basic facts of Madsen's life, it is not making up biographical details.  I don't agree about reliability or other assertion; i think it is notable topic.  I am looking at current version, perhaps improved from when the article was nominated. -- do  ncr  am  00:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the substantial independent coverage? --Neil N  talk to me 03:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to post this as a vote? p  b  p  15:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I want to see if I'm missing something. --Neil N  talk to me 15:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * doncram, I agree with you that reliability of basic facts aren't an issue with LDS newspapers. I disagree with you that LDS newspapers are sufficiently independent of this subject to warrant notability, however, if the claim of notability is pegged entirely on his position within the LDS. Agyle (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete I could find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources with which to establish notability of the subject. I did find significant coverage in several Deseret News articles, but Deseret is owned by the Church with which the subject is intimately affiliated, so this is not independent of the subject. The cited coverage by Southern Virginia University is a 2-paragraph bio of unknown origin, included because Madsen was speaking at an SVU-hosted conference; this is minor coverage and I wouldn't consider it an indication of notability. Every other publication currently cited in the article is either owned or sponsored by the Church (Ensign, Deseret News, Deseret Morning News Church Almanac, New Era, Church News, England Bristol Mission, and Brigham Young University). Some are certainly reliable sources for certain facts, but they are not independent. Agyle (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent sources having in-depth coverage found or provided. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep given 's point about the First Quorum. I find troubling the argument that every source that happens to involve an LDS member is disqualified for establishing the notability of an LDS topic; whether intentionally or not, this has the effect of Wikipedia spurning an international religious community of millions.  We should not do this.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Many LDS members attract significant independent coverage about LDS activities. This inherent "top LDS leaders" rationale could be argued for the top leaders of any organization; we don't automatically allow articles on the top 100 Post Office employees, or Boy Scout leaders, and shouldn't. When the only significant coverage about them is written by those organizations, it's unlikely to be balanced/neutral, which is one reason Wikipedia requires independent sources. Agyle (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are not only involved with members, they are owned by the Church. As I mentioned in another delete discussion, this is like saying a General Motors engineer is notable because he was featured in a General Motors newsletter. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The attempted comparisons do not work, and they ignore the full bredth of the sources. If you look at many government figures, you will find the only sources are ones owned by the government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Examples please? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * John Pack Lambert, while LDS's publications aren't directly analogous to a GM newsletter, the ones being cited are not as disparate as the federal government's publications. I encountered primarily seven different LDS publications published by two subsidiaries while reviewing the second quorum articles for a multi-subject AfD‎: Intellectual Reserve, Inc.'s Lds.org (which contains bios and reprints from other church publications), Mormon Newsroom (which publishes press releases), Ensign & Liahona (both magazines that seem to be mainly about Church-related news and topics), and Deseret Management Corp/Deseret News Publishing Company's Deseret News (a general newspaper with a Church-friendly approach), the News' weekly insert Church News (about the LDS), and Deseret News Church Almanac (annual compendium of Church News). These should not be considered independent of the LDS Church and its management, or of one another. While Deseret News publishes non-church-related stories, the first value in DMC's mission statement is "I honor principles espoused by our owner in the products and services I provide"; there is no way it could be considered an unbiased source of coverage about the Church. Agyle (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 21:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep, although it looks like what the problem here is not unbiased sources (please..... this is hardly an argument at all as sources are not expected to be entirely NPOV.... that is instead what the article writing here on Wikipedia is striving for). The issue here is mainly one of WP:PRIMARY, where it appears too much of the article is coming from primary sources and not secondary sources.  That, however, is not grounds for deletion and certainly not a lack of notability, but rather pushing for more outside sources.  In this case, however, it may be something where you need to look for more local sources of information... for example, Deseret News is not the only newspaper in Utah that covers stuff happening in the LDS Church.  IMHO notability is clearly met with this particular topic, although seeking out more outside sources would certainly make a better article.  This does not reach the level of requiring an article deletion here, but rather an editorial note and discussion on the talk page instead.  Very clear consensus from general policy discussions is that articles heavy on primary sources should not for this reason be considered for deletion.  Perhaps not considered featured articles (or even good articles) either, but deletion is not the solution here.  --Robert Horning (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about unbiased sources, we're talking about independent secondary sources as notability is certainly not a given. I don't see how you can say notability is clearly met when WP:GNG begins with, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Robert Horning, reiterating NielN, the real issue is neither biased nor primary sources (Deseret News could arguably be considered a secondary source), but independent sources. (The nominator mentioned independence; the first respondant mentioned bias). As you said, many outside (independent) sources cover the LDS Church, but that's just the point: nobody has found any that provide significant coverage of John M. Madsen. ––Agyle (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While a Google search is certainly useful for establishing notability, the lack of a search finding results, even for living people, is not justification for non-notability. I agree more sources should be acquired, but I also think it is unfair and unreasonable to simply group everything related to publications by LDS church members as simply coming from a single source.  Bias is indeed a reason given above, presuming that somehow NPOV sources exist outside of the LDS Church somehow about LDS topics.  What is at stake here is the notability of members of the 1st quorum of the Seventy though in the context of the LDS Church.  That also establishes some degree of notability simply by being a member even if currently available sources are hard to find.... sort of like how notability is automatically assumed for United States Senators (just try to AfD one of those articles!)  BTW, I found references to John C. Madsen in the Salt Lake Tribune when looking through their historical references.... a newspaper that clearly is not owned by the LDS Church (although former staff members might disagree at the moment).  Those references are unfortunately behind a paywall that I'm not going to bother retrieving, and I am pretty certain you could find other references in other places that may not be indexed very well by Google.  --Robert Horning (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Repeating what I said at another AFD, people don't become notable because their position has special properties. Notability is assumed for U.S. Senators because it is assumed independent reliable sources exist that contain in-depth coverage of the subject. You can challenge that assumption if you wish. Right now, given this AFD has been running for three weeks and no one has provided similar sources for this subject, I don't think you can make the same kind of assumption for this position. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A person did mention bias, but the criteria set out in WP:GNG do not require unbiased sources to establish notability, they seek significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The SL Tribune articles that mention Madsen seem to be about other topics, and include minor mention of Madsen; i.e. their coverage is independent, but not significant. I have searched beyond Google, and still found only minor/passing coverage. Madsen authored around a half dozen short articles published by the Church, wrote a PhD dissertation about Church missionaries, and was one of three signers of a widely-distributed letter from the Church supporting a non-same-sex marriage proposal in California. Most mentions I've found of Madsen seem to be minor references to these works, or simply include his name amongst various lists of people. Some examples:
 * (The article excerpts 2 other sentences from the letter, and describes its spread on the internet in 2 sentences.)
 * Includes a reprint of a letter jointly written by Madsen (the same letter mentioned in the SFGate/San Francisco Examiner article).
 * (Quote is from a footnote).
 * (Mentioned in a footnote.)
 * Madsen is referenced in a footnote on a point about the LDS doctrine of endurance.
 * Name is included within two lists of quorum members; one of them includes dates the members were sustained.
 * 4 of Madsen's articles are listed as references; the book is entirely subject-indexed lists of LDS-published writings.
 * One of Madsen's Ensign articles is listed as a reference.
 * One of Madsen's Ensign articles is referenced in a footnote.
 * One of Madsen's articles is referenced.
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The independent sources guideline can be overstated. Imagine Christian articles with no Christian sources.  The more reasonable argument is that there is no significant coverage. There does not seem to be an issue with his actual importance in the church. --Bejnar (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article uses many Christian sources, which nobody has opposed. The independence issue is whether LDS Church-owned sources about LDS Church executives satisfy WP's notability criteria. Btw, Independent sources is not a guideline. ––Agyle (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The essay is not a guideline, but the terminology "independent sources" occurs in the guidelines, see We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. WP:Notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that long list of sources that mention Madsen, coupled with what we have here, would lead us to say he has passed notability. His work is clearly looked to, his statements have influence in multiple locations, and have drawn notice, and we have indepth coverage of him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is off. As noted by Agyle above, his name comes up from time to time, but not in an in-depth way.  p  b  p  23:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A properly sourced article looks like this Thomas S. Monson. Madson is 75, if he was interested in publicity there would be many usable sources. It should be easy for him, he evidently isn't interested in that. Not even a picture? There has to be a line some place. This article is really crossing the line but not far enough to really worry about. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2014 (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.