Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent F. Richards


 * 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   no consensus. There is no agreement on whether the sources provided, such as the Deseret News, are sufficiently independent to push Richards past the notability line. I suggest further discussion about whether such publications are notable when talking about LDS people generally, perhaps at WP:RS. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Kent F. Richards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't have any sourcing that is independently notable of the topic. He's a Mormon leader who's only sourcing comes from the Mormon church. Some claim that any high-ranking church leader is automatically notable, but that is not supported by any policy or guideline. p b  p  17:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Leaning towards "delete", but I'm not sure whether or not the Deseret News is an independent source or not. Yes, it's owned by the LDS Church, but does that mean it's an LDS publication? We'd cite most other mainstream newspapers when writing about their own owners, no? Relentlessly (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a tough issue. I think that when one thinks about independence, there is such a thing as a single source being "not independent" but also being "not not independent" simultaneously: I guess we could call it "quasi-independent". The Deseret News is owned by the LDS Church, but is editorially independent of the church's religious leadership. The LDS Church does not directly control content, but the paper's editorial positions are consistently in line with LDS religious teachings. Arguments can be made on either side of the independent source issue, so I think it's probably valid to regard it as being kind of in a middle region. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails notability guidelines, no significant reliable coverage outside Mormon Church-related sources. Cavarrone 05:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep although I may be biased as the creator of the page. Some papers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=richards+kf with http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=958222 for further information.  The Deseret News, as noted previously, is editorially independent and there aren't really many state-wide choices in Utah as far as newspapers go -- most newspapers are local-only.  He's a member of one of the governing members of a 15-million-member church, and I think that situation should be analogous to the List of living cardinals.  Some claim that any high-ranking member of a notable church is not notable by virtue of that alone but that is not supported by any policy or guideline.  Other things about him are listed in the article.  However, I could see the case being made that he's only in the "Second Quorum" and not the "First Quorum".  Oh, there's also that book he put together: http://www.amazon.com/Family-Faith-Intimate-Generations-Apostles/dp/1609073940 Banaticus (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think a book Richards wrote is admissible per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. I don't really see the connect between the Catholic Church and Mormonism either, as the Catholic church is two orders of magnitude larger.  If you believe all general authorities are automatically notable, propose that that be enacted in one of the specific guidelines on notability.  At present, there's not a policy or guideline backing up the assertion that all general authorities are notable.  p  b  p  23:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Books written or edited contribute to notability (except self-published ones, unless they are the rare case of a a self-published work that becomes notable). Of course, the more notable the book, the more it contributes to notability.  In this case, the fact that it is published by a sectarian house limits notability, as does the fact that it has been reviewed only on mormon blogs and - surprise! - in Deseret News.   Still, it's a real book so it does contribute its mite to notability.  It belongs on the page.  I added it.  And then there is the fact that the book is about an ancestor and two relatives all named Richards.  Despite WP:NOTINHERITED, in the real worlds notability can be inherited in the sense that the name resonates: young politicians related to President Kennedy, writers (Jack Hemingway, Leicester Hemingway, Lorian Hemingway) related to and named Hemingway who have careers they might not have earned if named Smith.  Richards seems to be that sort of name in LDS. I suspect this of being a sort of Mormon campaign book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think all general authorities are automatically notable. For instance, I mentioned that he is only in the second quorum of the seventy, not the first. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I've though a lot about this issue in light of past discussions and have carefully considered both sides. I think there are valid points to be made on either side. However, I have to agree that as far as notability is concerned—for LDS Church general authorities who do not hold life tenure, this can only be established by independent sources. If the Deseret News is as close as we can get to non–LDS Church independent sourcing (and I think it's in a category of quasi-independence from the LDS Church), then I'm afraid it is simply not enough. There has no be at least some coverage in a source that is completely independent from the LDS Church. I can't find any in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources like the Deseret News are independent. The sources are adequate and demonstrate Richards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * added an article, it' brief but biographical. I think the Daily Herald (Utah) is a for-profit, albeit small paper, owned by Lee Enterprises. Also, he has a book out, from Deseret Book Company, Mormorm publishing house,  church owned publishing houses can be selective.  I have no idea if this one is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 13:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep his role as a church leader aside, he was chief of surgery at a major medical center. I suspect that a section on his medical career could be sources and would help establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Article I just added from the Daily Herald is brief, but the paper appears to be independently owned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)
 * He set medical career (both as surgeon and as administrator) aside to answer a call from the church, see my comments (fascinating) below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But the sources User:Banaticus brought add to the fact of being Chair of surgery to demonstrate that he has considerable stature as a physician in a major university medical center.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=richards+kf with http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=958222 E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles ABOUT Kent F. Richards could help to assess notability, but articles written BY Kent F. Richards himself (as the one from ncbi you linked above) certainly not. Being a chief of surgery does not provide automatic notability, and in my searches I cannot found any evidence  his medical career is somewhat notable. Cavarrone  17:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't add it to article, it's an article he wrote in a medical journal, brought it here to make the point that someone who knows how medical careers work could  probably source a brief section about his professional career, Chairman of the Department of Surgery at a major medical center is not a minor achievement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Being chairman of a medical department could even be a good achievement in real life, but says nothing in terms of encyclopedic notability, except there are secondary sources covering his professional career (apparently not). Cavarrone 20:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is cumulative. It lies to some degree in his publication record in medical journals, in his appointment as Chair, and in his management role at Intermountain HealthCare. These are added to a published book, and, most significantly, to his clerical eminence.  This happens all the time with academics, minor scholar, not notable.  But minor scholar + minor political activist = notable.  We add it all up because the sum is often greater than the parts. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, our guidelines do not support your interpretations. A non-notable medical career + non-notable management roles = non-notable individual. Notability lies on independent secondary sources, and sources do not support your claims he was ever notable as a doctor nor as a chairman of a medical department. Cavarrone 19:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot dismiss being Chairman of the Department of Surgery at a large teaching hospital, or a physician being selected to sit on the Board of Directors of a major medical center as a null indicator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an inherent problem with articles about people and doings in Salt Lake City. In other cities the local radio, TV stations, and newspaper are reliable sources.  Articles in them establish notability. Consider the South Bend Tribune or the The News & Observer, or The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana). we regard coverage in these newspaper as reliable, even though Notre Dame, Duke, UNC the University of Illinois are the biggest, in some sense the only significant institutions in these towns (OK, I concede that the News & Observer covers the state capitol, but still) and the relationship between paper and university is symbiotic, bordering on sycophantic. Although, of course, they are independently owned.   Deseret is a major newspaper and covers a lot of ordinary local sports, business and news.  It is a special case and, I think, should rightly count somewhat more towards notability than a mere house organ like the Harvard Gazette or a Diocesan magazines, although these can be cited for facts.  The Gazette, to pick on an example I know well, or Harvard Magazine exist solely for self-promotion of the university.  But a profile in Harvard Magazine is often cited as though it was an independent magazine. Like Deseret, the Harvard Gazette, and Harvard Magazine have a paid staff, even well-paid, and a degree of editorial independence, despite their mission of self-promotion.  So, I do think that profiles in Deseret attest  to notability.  I have sourced facts about Richards sources to independent, for-profit papers, Idaho State Journal, Standard-Examiner, Sun-Sentinel, Daily Herald (Utah).  But in the matter of notability, long articles focused on him in Deseret should be regarded like an article about a university administrator in the   The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana).  It shows that the individual is a big deal in South Bend, it shows this more strongly than the Illinois Alumni Magazine, but less persuasively than an article in the Chicago Tribune, which, itself , is less persuasive than a profile in the Washington Post (In terms of supporting notability for people and events in Illinois).  As [[User talk:Good Olfactory says, we really have to treat Deseret as a special case, in articles about LDS.  Deseret covers LDS not only because it is church owned, but because church members read it.  Almost like WSJ covering capital markets; they don't do it merely because they are capitalists, but because their readers are. E.M.Gregory (talk)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * fascinating I've been keeping this file open and returning to this man and his career, getting an education in LDS. I've expanded the article a little (mostly I've sourced it).  What I hadn't known is that he put his medical career  on hold for 7 years to take a full time "mission" (read: LDS regional management job) in San Antonio.  Then stepped away permanently form his medical practice and career as vice president of a very major health care corporation in 2009, to become a Mormon church official. But only in the last few months has he risen to the level of job where he now flies around to open new Mormon temples, and gives devotional speeches to huge audience that get covered in detail in the press (OK - Deseret News) .    I am now firmly convinced that: KEEP, partly because it is now clear to me that, for Mormon leader, he's early career. (I love the part in one of the articles where in 2008 his wife - already a grandmother - was on the board of an Mormon outfit called the "Young Women's"... something.  I don't mean disrespect.  au contraire both husband and wife are in serious leadership roles in the Mormon world.  What I  want to point out is that Richard's career in church leadership appears to still be on the rise.  It always seems wasteful to me to delete article on early career individuals where there is solid sourcing and a plausible case for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * summing up Here's what I mean, when you organize a news search on his name by date, you see that all of a sudden he's the guy issuing major statements on church policy changes, and keynoting big deal events , , . Overwhelmingly Deseret News, but big deal stuff within the Mormon world, and the Mormon world is a big world to be a mover and a shaker within.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If he was significant, there would be more reliable sources about him. p  b  p  22:55, 19 March 2015 (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.