Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Larsen


 * 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   redirect to A Motley Vision.  MBisanz  talk 00:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Kent Larsen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A book publisher and blogger on Mormon subjects. He worked for book publishers for 20-years before starting his own company. The "publishing ventures" and "online ventures" section includes companies/places he as worked for with some "online ventures" started by him. Refs in the article goto the blog sites he writes for, a review of a book that doesn't mention him and and external link that is maintained by Mr Larsen. Unable to find any reliable, independent refs. Prod was contested as "...it seems to me that any journalist or critic or commentator (etc) who is frequently cited in WP articles in order to establish notability must also be notable. Or else why could we cite them to establish notability." Bgwhite (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As a starting point, can you address that argument? It seems valid. Thmazing (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Doesn't matter. We play by WP:GNG.  You need independent, reliable references that go into detail about the subject.
 * 2) As you are well aware, as you put many of the Kent Larsen references in the articles and you wrote this article, they are all referencing something said in a blog. Last time I checked, a general blog is unreliable and should not be used as a reference.  Looking at the first 5 listed (skipping over another Real World using the same ref).
 * The Real World: New Orleans Reference used is here. Sorry, but that is not a reliable reference as he just "summarized" info on the blog and never wrote anything as he copied the info provided.  On Wikipedia, you are supposed to use one of the refs listed, not reference the blog.  This reference should be removed from Wikipedia.
 * Surrender Dorothy Reference used is this and does the same thing.
 * Brigham Young University–Idaho Reference used is this and does the same thing.
 * Stan Kenton. Hmm, didn't know Larsen was a jazz band member in the 30s
 * Josep Carles Laínez Reference used is this.  It is a book review in a blog that was given the book and made some money for doing a review.  Not sure how many reviews were out there that reviewed a book written in a dead language and the first published in that language for over 100 years.  My sister-in-law puts book reviews on her blog.  Should I start referencing them to get her a Wikipedia page?
 * Now, please add independent, reliable references that go into detail about him and then this AfD becomes dead. Bgwhite (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to start a fight, my goodness. I was asking a question. (And, incidentally, I'm as amused as you by the Kenton thing. I had not noticed that incoming link.
 * As a matter of Wikipedia strategy (and as I see you are a gnome yourself, I'm sure you'll sympathize with this), I don't always begin with a brilliant article. I often start with something stubbish, then incrementally approve it, expecting that other gnomes will step in and assist the process. Which happens as often as not.
 * (Incidentally, I recognize the reasons for nominating articles for deletion and am not debating the legitimacy of the process---I've seen many articles become worthy through the process. I just hate when it happens when I'm the only person working on a nascent article and I have many IRL obligations pushing down at the same time.)
 * Your points on the aggregate nature of the links are valid. I would like to make one counterpoint however, viz. things must become commented upon and analyzed and discussed as well as reported upon in order to become notable. And A Motley Vision, contrary to your assertions, does not make money on its reviews. In fact, it goes out of its way to avoid even the appearance of such. Check out the site and see for yourself rather than making assumptions based on the fact that the book reviewed was publisher-supplied. (Which, it's worth noting, is common industry practice. You think the NYTBR pays for it's books? PW? Kirkus? Any major review outlet / newspaper? The answer is no.)
 * Also worth replying to is your sister's-blog comment. Best I can tell, you're not terribly familiar with the Mormon ghetto of Wikipedia, because I doubt you would make that comment about a book review on Gawker or BoingBoing which are also blogs. If I could be so bold, do some link-following around Mormon articles.
 * Since I first put the article up, I've added and clarified a few more things and will continue to do so. I have a few more references I've been meaning to work in, but haven't gotten to yet (my gnomelike incrementality can be a liability is situations such as these). But I have added some. Which is why I feel confident in making my vote as it appears below.
 * All that said, there is a bit of an issue with WP:GNG. Best I can tell, we have a loop problem here, where general notability requires significant coverage and the definition of significant coverage is that which provides general notability. Which isn't helpful for me in trying to figure out where the line is between significant and insignificant. For instance, can significance build over time or does it take some sort of critical buildup over limited time?
 * Also, favor, could you provide some links explaining your comment on general blogs? I don't know what a "general" blog so I don't know how to address your comment.
 * But thank you for challenging me. When I decided to write this article, I gave it a 25% chance of being challenged, and although I find the process tiring, I'm convinced it makes us all better Wikipedians.Thmazing (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP Larsen is a significant loyal-but-unofficial commentator on Mormonism, for which role he has shared an AML Award and has been sought out by the press. He is also a visible participant in several notable-enough-for-a-Wikipedia-article projects. Thmazing (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have failed to answer WP:GNG. Significant coverage in GNG is cut and dry... without independent, reliable refs about him, no article.
 * It says straight up that on their page that A Motley Vision made money on book reviews up until 2011.
 * According to, Larsen has made 65 posts in 7 years. How is he significant commentator when he barely writes and there are no references about him?
 * Do not make the "I'm a poor Mormon" excuse. I am a Mormon, so don't use bigotry against Mormons on Wikipedia for an excuse.  When one one implies I'm a bigot and Wikipedia is too, I'm done talking to you Bgwhite (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GOODFAITH---I never claimed bigotry. Please read more carefully.
 * Also, read AMV's disclaimers more carefully. They never made money off their reviews, even though they did, for a short time, link to Amazon through the Associates program. Reviews were never paid for as you seem to be implying. (Note my use of the phrase "seem to", evidence of my attempt to exercise good faith.).
 * I am not trying to antagonize you. Please invite some other administrators into this discussion if you feel I am being unfair or hatey or something. That is not my reputation and I would rather remain unsullied by such complaints.
 * Back to the topic at hand, I'm not clear that significance is defined by volume. I would say it's more defined by attention paid. That I think is what we should be discussing on this page. John Kennedy Toole only ever wrote one book.
 * Attempting to engage in politeness,
 * I remain,
 * Thmazing (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like you're talking past each other. Thmazing is interested in a larger conversation on notability and Bgwhite is judging the merits of this article by the current standards. I agree that the references supplied for Kent Larsen don't meet the current standards for notability and I think he is a poor test case for expanding those standards, but I'm baffled at the antagonistic turn this discussion has taken and I hope that the larger conversation can continue productively. Katya (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Because there are no deadlines, I am going to disengage for now. I may swing by and add to the article now and then, but I think it best if I try to stay out of this discussion. At least for a while. I will assume good faith re those here now and those who may arrive later. One great thing about Wikipedia is that we don't have to do anything on our own. Thmazing (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep due to winner of AML Award per WP:ANYBIO #1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". That's enough for a Keep. Granted this award may not be well known to non-Mormons, but since the author is notable for being Mormon and writing on Mormon topics, the Mormon award shows him to be a notable Mormon writer. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - the subject of the article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are either related to the topic or do not cover the topic in sufficient depth. There does not appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources related to the subject winning the AML Award, suggesting that this award is not well known and significant enough to meet the spirit of this secondary guideline. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ANYBIO says the award has to be well known, which it is among Mormons. It doesn't say in-depth coverage of the subject in relation to the award. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From two lines above ANYBIO: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." If the subject does not meet WP:GNG, then there is not enough third party coverage to write a verifiable article. WP:ACADEMIC qualifies its award clause with "at a national or international level"; maybe ANYBIO needs to clarify the sort of award likely to indicate notability as well. VQuakr (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, if you believe the award is not notable enough, these are just our opinions. I believe it's notable enough is my opinion. (re: national/international, surely it must be? Mormons seem to be in many countries and retain their culture sort of like Amish). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-direct to A Motley Vision as his only claim to notability is as one of the authors of that blog, and it's the blog that won the award. Bondegezou (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. As discussed above, the sources covering the subject are uniformly problematic; they are either unreliable under WP:RS, not independent or both. I accept that he has won an AML Award, and do not contest that it is a significant award among Mormons; I wish I could say it should be kept on this basis, but the WP:ANYBIO guideline does not allow us to interpret it as significant, in my view. The guideline says, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." If it were the intention of the guideline to specify a significant award within the field or culture in which the person is primarily known, that would have been written in it. In its absence, we must interpret this to mean a significant award from the perspective of society generally, which I would argue this is not. Delete for failing WP:GNG without prejudice for recreation if the subject becomes notable in future (and better sourcing is available). --Batard0 (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * delete His name is incredibly common, and indeed I suspect some of the other people I get hits for are more notable. But in any case he does not inherit notability from the blog, and I cannot find any other important trace of him. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2012 (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.