Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Y. Wilson


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Larry Y. Wilson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources independent enough of the subject to establish notability. Similar LDS official articles have been deleted or redirected. A bold redirect was tried, but reverted by the article's creator p  b  p  00:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose First off, this is a nomination by a person who has 1-admitted to viewing all LDS sources as "dubious". If someone with the same sort of antagonism towards all Jewish sources was going around nominating for deletion articles on Jewish rabbis, people would take issue at it. 2-The nominator just tried to unilaterally make the article into a redirect, and only because I stopped that unacceptable behavior, did he bother nominating it. Such underhanded attempts at deletion should be stopped. 3- The nominator's interpetation of what sources are independent of the subject is flawed. The Ensign and the Church News are not controlled by Larry Wilson, and they have staff who write the articles independent of the subject. The attempted interpretation of "indepdent" is just not workable. It makes too many sources considered controlled by the subject. Lastly this is part of a wide ranging set of nomination that really should be taken up together to create maximum discussion. They boil down to an attempt to severely limit the coverage of a particular religious community by an editor who has shown antagonism towards that religious community, and has been shown to have flawed reasoning when the discussions have been held in better viewed forums, as happened with his unjustified attacks on the article on the Medford Oregon Temple. I think he needs to be severly reprimanded for the underhanded way in which he tried to eliminate this article. Such actions are not in keeping with the community consensus nature of wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you need to get off your soapbox, stop attacking me with weasel words, and actually provide an argument about whether or not this meets GNG. Bold redirects are perfectly acceptable, particularly when similar articles have been redirected or deleted (Articles for deletion/Lino Alvarez is one recent example).  Nobody is going to "severely reprimand" me for nominating poorly sourced articles for deletion; sanctions do not come from AfD discussions.  If anybody needs to be sanctioned, it's you, for your use of weasel words and misinterpreting of policy.  p  b  p  00:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and a trout to Johnpacklambert. Instead of soapboxing, find independent sources to show the subject meets WP:GNG. If GM publishes a newsletter and profiles one of its engineers in an issue, we're not going to have an article based on that newsletter. -- Neil N  talk to me  00:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If GM profiled one of its top vice presidents who was over the opetions of the company in an entire country, the analogy would be similar. The General Authroties are the leaders of a world-wide church with 15 million members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And independent industry magazines and automobile journals would have coverage of him, right? -- Neil N  talk to me  02:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * General authorities are far more numerous than GM vice presidents, and can you actually provide an example of an executive who never rose among the top 100 in his company, had an article only sourced by statements from his company, and had an AfD closed as keep solely because of the position he held in his company? I doubt it.  The problem here is your line of argument is based either in expanding GNG to include sources it normally doesn't, or else ignoring it altogether (because of your claim that significant people to an organization should be kept).  Neither is a particularly strong argument.  p  b  p  03:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing encyclopedic here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaconaFrere (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. It seems unusual to me that the church of Latter Day Saints has this nomenclature, with which I was heretofore unfamiliar, but the General authority concept of that church defines a small number of individuals who have a high status, including Larry Y. Wilson.  These individuals seem to be very limited in number, and individually notable.  Every one in List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an article, it appears (although potentially one or more of those bluelinks actually merely go to redirects?).  It is asserted in the nomination that "Similar LDS official articles have been deleted or redirected";  please provide evidence, i don't see it so far.  My view is this should be kept, as apparently notable, definitely unusual. -- do  ncr  am  02:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , Articles for deletion/Lino Alvarez and Articles for deletion/Kevin S. Hamilton p  b  p  02:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for followup. I notice that Lino Alvarez is not mentioned in List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, why not? While Kevin S. Hamilton is listed there.  Does someone have access to the deleted Alvarez article, which could be used to update the List page.  Could an admin provide that to me, please.  Also, perhaps the two are notable for being the only two LDS authorities being deemed not notable by the small number of Wikipedians who comment in AFDs about them. :) -- do  ncr  am  02:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Last p  b  p  03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, i see that the Lino Alvarez article was redirectd, not deleted, so the pre-AFD version remains available to me. My wikipedia name is doncram.  Thanks. -- do  ncr  am  03:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason Alvarez is not listed may be because he is not currently a member of the 2nd Quorum of the 70. However, considering the number of general authorities there have been, there is no reason we cannot list all of them. Would people be ok with expanding the list aritcle to include more than just names?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't understand why some articles about Second Quorum members have been nominated for deletion while others are left alone. To me, it's a matter of all or none. That is, either all Second Quorum members are relevant subjects for articles or none are. So which is it? I also find it interesting that only the articles I have written are being nominated for deletion. I feel like my work is being unfairly singled out, when there are other articles of the same situation (no sources outside of LDS-related ones) that are being left alone. I also feel like there is no argument I can make that would allow any or all such articles to be kept. This bothers me. LDS-related resources are just as reliable as non-LDS-related resources. They can be verified just as easily. So I don't see the problem in having articles just cite LDS-related resources. I fail to see how an article fails to reach GNG standards simply because the only resources available are LDS-related ones. Any light you can shed on these subjects would be appreciated. As with all previous discussions, this will likely be my only comment. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your premise is incorrect. It's like saying all university professors are notable or none are. No, we use WP:ACADEMIC to determine which are notable. As we don't have a similar guideline for religious figures, we fall back on WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage in independent sources. -- Neil N  talk to me  07:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "I fail to see how an article fails to reach GNG standards simply because the only resources available are LDS-related ones." That's essentially the definition of GNG: having to find independent sources.  If your notability stems from holding a position with that organization, sources published by that organization are non-independent.  And you are correct that you cannot argue your way out of this.  It's either find significant coverage in reliable sources, or watch the articles get deleted/redirected.  p  b  p  14:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect or delete - not sure why these were created in the first place. Per my commentary in other related AFDs these should be redirected to the list of General Authority members. We do have rules about the inherent notability of catholic cardinals but that's a small group of members-for-life responsible for a billion followers, not a large group of temporary members responsible for millions. The sources provided in each instance simply aren't independent of the subjects they cover. As above, truly notable individuals will be covered in non-LDS sources which is the point at which they become notable by our standards.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Per above (WP:BIO/WP:GNG). I'm seeing a few independent sources, but not many and not very significant. If more are produced I'm happy to change my !vote. Comments below. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments to those !voting to keep/oppose:
 * I can understand feeling singled out when multiple articles are nominated at once -- like someone is targeting you unfairly or prejudicially. With so many articles being created and updated all the time, it just sort of happens that when an editor notices problems with one, he/she will look for similar problems in similar articles. These subjects are linked so closely and have such similar problems it's not surprising to me that they could all be nominated at once.
 * Of course I don't know the intentions of the nominator and others involved here, but I wouldn't say there's a conspiracy or some sort of bad faith at work. This seems like straightforward application of our notability criteria, which quite clearly says the sources should be independent of the subject. Just because this person didn't say "write about me" to various LDS sites/publications doesn't mean he couldn't have done so in some way (perhaps not phrased so bluntly, but you get my meaning, I think).
 * I don't think anybody is saying that no Mormon source can possibly count to establish notability. The only sources at issue here are those associated with the same organization the subject of the article is part of. An independent "Mormon News" website run by someone with no ties to LDS aside from being a believer would be perfectly independent (though still subject, of course, to rules about reliable sources, but that seems less the issue here).
 * To the page creator(s), there is a process through which you may be able to have these articles "userfied" if they're deleted. That means your work wouldn't just be removed but rather it would be moved to a subpage of your user page. If you believe sources will emerge in the future such that the article can be recreated, this may be a good option. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, "userfying" is awful, frankly. Many general authority persons might become clearly notable in the future, and no one will be able to find a "userfied" article located in one editor's account, an editor likely to be demoralized by all this and to have quit Wikipedia entirely.  A better resolution, if consensus is against a general authority person being notable yet, is to redirect (leaving edit history intact, and permitting reinstatement of the article later with proper credit in edit history).  Really, userfying is insulting and awful.  Userfy to whose account?  The creator is not the only editor or supporter of the article, note.  Again, i do !vote Keep as I do think Wilson is notable, the church sources are enough in my view, and my review of other general authority persons is that they gain more and more coverage, so expect more about Wilson too, so why not keep the article now. -- do  ncr  am  01:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Opinion noted. But it's not your work that would be userfied in your own userspace. And it's not actually "insulting and awful" to everybody (there are plenty of people who would feel more frustrated/demoralized by having their work buried under a redirect rather than being able to easily see, show, or improve it directly). It's an option if someone wants to request it is all. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete While I agree that there is a lot of prejudice towards and even unfair treatment of "new religious movements" by some (including some hyperactive) editors, looking at this article by itself it really reads like a resume. That is here's a person who's held this and that job and position in his career, and all sourced (as others have mentioned) by sources related to his employer.  If no one outside has bothered to praise or criticize him I don't really believe he's notable, and what's more I don't think a worthwhile or interesting article (beyond the resume or who's who) could be written. (All regardless of tons of "other stuff.") Borock (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW it's harder for a religious figure to obtain "notability" since in general they do not try to draw attention to themselves. Borock (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I ran a search in a news literature database on "general authority" and get a lot of hits to Mormons within Deseret News articles but also New York Times and Los Angeles Times and other major newspapers' articles.  Many of these are obituaries for Church of Latter Day Saints general authority persons, who are NOT listed in the List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which only covers CURRENT authorities).  Notability is not temporary.  Obituaries in major newspapers do help establish notability.  For the persons (including creator of this Larry Y. Wilson article) who are interested in covering major Mormons, perhaps developing articles on PAST general authorities who have been clearly covered in other sources would be productive.  These could definitely be included in a section in the List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article.  I !voted Keep above already and I do stick with that. -- do  ncr  am  23:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have no objection to covering LDS General Authority members if they pass WP:GNG. Former members with obits in the NYT would likely pass GNG and we should have articles about them. Current members who have only received coverage from their own congregations are not notable (in my view). Support, absolutely, the creation of articles about notable former members rather than non-notable (yet) current members. WP:TOOSOON applies here too. And support, again absolutely, the inclusion of those former members in appropriate lists.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - bishops in the LDS are more like pastors in mainline churches (see Mitt Romney), while general authority is something like a Cardinal in the RC church. We normally keep high-ranking church leaders. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I can't declare myself "pope" and be considered notable, right? This analogy has been raised in the context of other LDS AFDs - cardinals are a small group, appointed for life, responsible for a billion Catholics. LDS GAs are a larger group, appointed for temporary terms, responsible for millions. Cardinals are likely to receive coverage as a group (in much the same way as a football team) and as individuals in their own diocese. Where they do not, we presume they are as notable as their colleagues. There is no such presumption for LDS GAs who, from experience thus far, generally only receive coverage from their own churches. Equivalency in terms of rank does not equate to equivalency in terms of notability.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The essay you point to has two major qualifications: "major denominations" and "People listed as bishops in Pentecostalist denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third party coverage." I'm guessing the latter is because Pentecostalism is not considered a major denomination but I may be wrong. Be that as it may, LDS members make up less than 1% of Christians, hardly a major denomination. -- Neil N  talk to me  23:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I find citing a common outcome as a prescription for the process it purports only to describe problematic, but I know I'm generally in the minority on that matter ( see for example the number of keep votes at every high school AfD regardless of sources ). Still, when analogizing and reading between the lines is necessary on top of that, something is amiss. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , GAs are nothing like cardinals. There are about as many GAs as Cardinals in the world, even though the Mormon church has 13-14 million congregants and the Catholic church more than a billion.  Furthermore, Catholic cardinals are careerist priests and Mormon GAs aren't.  p  b  p  03:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The LDS Church is one of the 5 largest denominations in the US. The reason Pentacostal bishops are generally not notable is actually more why Mormon bishops are generally not notable, but a little more complex. Pentacostalism is not a unified denomination like the Roman Catholic Church, but a complex set of similar religious groups, lacking any centralized administration. Bishops in Pentacostal denominations lack the clear higherarchical standing that bishops in other denominations have. For what it is worth, it appears that bishops in The Episcoal Church are considered notable, but there are about twice as many Mormon as Episcopalians in the US (and probably about 4 times as many Mormons total), so it would seem Mormon general authroties become more notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But this isn't the "U.S. Wikipedia". People don't become notable because their position has magical properties. The essay cited is based on the notion that certain things are notable because they usually meet GNG. This has not been shown with LDS officials. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  03:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "The LDS Church is big, and these are high-ranking LDS officials, so they must be notable" doesn't quite make the argument. Also, keep in mind that there are fewer Episcopal bishops than there are general authorities, and Episcopal bishops are careerist priests while Mormon general authorities aren't.  The reason something is allowed to be considered notable isn't because of the size of congregants presidents over, it's usually because there is a belief that reliable, independent sources do exist for most or all people in that category.  I do not believe that reliable, independent sources exists for most or all the people in this category.  p  b  p  03:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a close call for automatic notability based on the church post. I don't think there is consensus about this particular post, so I won't push that. There is some material out there which might provide verifiable sourcing but in my judgement there is not enough for a GNG pass. Much of the personal information in this piece is unsourced. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The "magical" reference above, especially in light of some other mockings of Mormons, certainly sounds like an attack comment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 14 June 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.