Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications critical of the Latter Day Saint movement


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

List of publications critical of the Latter Day Saint movement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM more or less cover this. The list appears to be unique on Wikipedia: there is no other 'List of publications critical of...' any other religion, nor of anything else. It inherently fails WP:NPOV, and most of the content is of little encyclopaedic interest. Though a few of the books listed have Wikipedia articles (some more deserved than others, in my opinion, but that is an issue for elsewhere), there is nothing to indicate that any of the remaining content is remotely significant, and no reason whatsoever to suggest that any of it would be seen as a reliable source for anything but the author's own opinions. I can think of no legitimate reason why an encyclopaedia should contain such a ragbag collection of 'publications' chosen for no other reason than their perspective on a particular faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I am not myself necessarily convinced by all the statements above, and note that there are several "Bibliography of..." articles, I do not see anything in this list which indicates to me that it meets separate notability guidelines, as it would have to. It is also, honestly, apparently completely unreferenced, except perhaps to the publications/web sites themselves. While I could see a Bibliography of the Latter Day Saint movement, and honestly believe there almost certainly is sufficient notability for that, it doesn't seem to exist yet, and keeping what is basically a POV fork of a nonexistent article doesn't make a great deal of sense. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There exist sources for bibliographies of Mormon criticism, for instance, , and , but only the first one (put out by BYU) may be reliable. There are definitely reliable sources for a bibliography of LDS writings, such as  and A Mormon Bibliography 1830 To 1930: Indexes To A Mormon Bibliography And Ten Year Supplement, Editors Chad J. Flake, Larry W. Draper. --Mark viking (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 01:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete totally un-cited and un referenced. Critical is POV and needs substantial third party references. Given that there are no refs, it is completely WP:OR and unsuitable for wikipedia.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  02:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This probably meets the notability criteria for lists, but it would be far better to have a neutral bibliographic list. I see lots of websites on the list that are probably self-published. StAnselm (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for POV reasons, although I also agree with the above editors that say a neutral list would be fine. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- On a subject like this, authors will almost inevitably be for or against LDS theology and practice. There is a big differnece between having an article that expresses one POV and an article about a widely held POV.  We are not going to agree whether Mormonism is right or wrong, but it is as legitmate to have an article giving a bibliograpohy of works supporting the LDS POV as to have one rejecting it.  Here I am referring to the bibliography, not the list of websites, which may well need to be pruned.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. This article can become very subjective and too expansive. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid split; the main article at Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is too long. FWIW, I am not a Mormon, but I have had Morman clients and students. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2013 (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.