Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter to a CES Director


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter to a CES Director

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Weak evidence that the "letter" is notable. "Viral" claim made by author himself on bio page, and this article almost exclusively serves to recap the works' contents -- a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Eustress 19:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Virality isn't notability, but I did add a hostile source (Christensen) which also lists the work as 'viral'.Darmokand (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep. The work has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. For example, a extensive review that was published in the journal Interpreter. A few other independent non-trivial works: Darmokand (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL Are you Jeremy? You're the author of the article too. Who do you think you're fooling? Tkfy7cf (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Tk, I have absolutely no ties to the book's author. I learned about it when it was featured in a 3-hr in-depth interview on John Dehlin's show Mormon Stories. --Darmokand (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG. Fails WP:BOOK. Fails WP:BIO. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete , since I'm not a passionate deletionist. I tend to agree that this doesn't satisfy WP:GNG.  Scouring for independent sources, all I can find is a very recent review in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture.  There were also posts on several blogs including Salt Lake Tribune blog by Peggy Fletcher Stack (although the "letter" isn't really the focus of the story), FairMormon Blog (Jeff Lindsay (engineer)), Rational Faiths (Brian C. Hales), and Mormon Stories Podcast interview by John Dehlin.  The FairMormon wiki has a lot to say, but it's just a wiki.  The remaining results appear to be discussion forums.  Overall, it's not much for reliable sources, mostly just online blogs and the like, no print sources that I can find.  As for WP:BKCRIT, the book hasn't won any awards, nor is it taught in school, nor is the author notable.  It's just circulated online as a PDF amongst interested groups.  ——Rich jj (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, FairMormon isn't a wiki, it's a private organization that happens to use MediaWiki software to host their organization's statments. But it's not a true "anyone can edit" wiki-- we can use it as a WP:RS for the views of FairMormon. --Darmokand (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Point taken that this is a private wiki by authorized FairMormon editors. I'll change my vote (can I do that?) to weak indifference.  ——Rich jj (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Only blogs and forums talk about this letter, so not enough sources to make it notable. Frmorrison (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Interpreter (journal), Mormon Stories Podcast, Salt Lake Tribune story and FairMormon should all qualify as "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  --Darmokand (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that these are independent, and probably sufficient, though not a long or impressive list. I read WP:GNG again and it seems the bar is fairly low.  Interpreter is probably the best as an online journal that can also do print issues (or by the article).  FairMormon and Mormon Stories are probably good sources, recognizing their respective biases.  The SL Trib one is really a blog post about the LCS Business College spamming, and I thought the author was Peggy Fletcher Stack (who is shown in the header), but the article appears to be signed by "Pamela Manson".  I often like print sources by traditional institutions (newspapers, academic journals, large magazines or publishing houses), but these sources are fine, just not ideal.  And earlier I muddied the waters with blogs, but the authors, Jeff Lindsay and Brian C. Hales, are recognized notable figures in Mormon apologetics.  ——Rich jj (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * An open letter was written criticizing a particular theology, a couple websites opposed to the theology picked it up, and then a couple websites supporting the theology (unofficial volunteer websites) responded to the letter's arguments. Nothing notable about the letter or the events surrounding it from what I can see, unless you consider spamming a few hundred people with the letter a notable event. Hence, this article can only reiterate the contents of the letter, which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about ("...articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents" WP:INDISCRIMINATE). —Eustress 03:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Doesn't look like it satisfies WP:GNG. The only two references I can find demonstrating its notability are two links to Mormon online journals. The Salt Lake Tribune article is a pretty significant independent source, but there's a grand total of one sentence dedicated to the subject of this article. Karzelek (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete IMO this doesn't satisfy the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:GNG, which means at this point it is extremely difficult to make this any more than a summary-only description of the work. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, so unless and until the Letter gets significant coverage in independent sources or has been shown to have a significant impact, then I don't think it crosses the notability threshold. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:45, 9 August 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.