Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O. Vincent Haleck


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

O. Vincent Haleck

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only mentioned in LDS-related sources or fleetingly. That's not enough for GNG, sorry. p b  p  02:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The coverage in the Samoa Observer seems sufficient. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with Eastmain, but for different reasons. The only Samoan Observer coverage I can find on this guy appears to be word-for-word reprints of press releases by Haleck's church. This coverage does not meet GNG's independent requirement, however, I believe the source is reliable. The same argument applies here as for all of the Second Quorum of the Seventies. (See Deletion_review/Log/2014_August_30, Articles for deletion/J. Devn Cornish, and Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen (2nd nomination).)


 * Here is my position. GNG is not the appropriate standard for people; it's a default standard that can provide for notability if none of the people standards apply. Looking just at notability for people, high-ranking clergy generally come in based on the honor afforded to the position, the quasi-political authority that they hold, and the status as an expert in their fields afforded by the office.


 * A clear rule for clergy would be preferable, but the general concensus has been that high-ranking clergy are nonetheless notable even without one. The common denominator appears to be the office itself, not sources. If notability is established under the people standards, then "independent" sources are not required to source an article, just "reliable" sources. It's easy to conflate this standard with the GNG rules, but they are seperate standards. That said truly independent third-party sources are still best for a good article.


 * As sources are still important to show notability, below are primarily independent sources that demonstrate Vinson's status based on his office (these are not meant to show the kind of converage that would meet GNG, but rather to show how assumption of the office changes Haleck's notability). If the community insists on GNG, then I say delete the article. If however, the people notability standards apply (which I think they do), then the below sources should be sufficient to demonstrate the notability based on the office. From there it is just a question of reliable sources which the church-affiliate sources appear to be despite questions of independence. The blogs might not be as "reliable" for sourcing the article, but they can still serve in establishing notability.


 * English:
 * http://mormonsoprano.com/2012/09/19/having-the-vision-to-do/ (independent analysis of Haleck's talk)
 * http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-21/kiribati-climate-change-destroys-pacific-island-nation#p1 (independent source - brief reference to Haleck's role in Mormon church and his efforts in Kiribati)
 * http://davisclipper.com/bookmark/12654145-Church-calls-new-general-authorities (independent news announcing Haleck's position)
 * http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/samoan-mormons-claim-language-banned-5588579 (Haleck responding to allegations that church banned Samoan language in Brisbane)
 * http://www.tongadailynews.to/?p=7602 (independent source - PM of Tonga expresses gratitude to Haleck as representative of church for cyclone relief)
 * http://jonesmission.weebly.com/oct-nov-2012.html (independent missionary blog expressing excitment for opportunity to be taught by Haleck)
 * http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormons-around-world-country-newsroom-18-april (official church news mentioning Haleck's role in Tongan cyclone relief)
 * http://www.atuna.com/NewsArchive/ViewArticle.asp?ID=3614 (independent source that identifies Haleck's pre-church occupation)
 * http://mdhpayne.blogspot.com/2012/04/elder-haleck.html (independent missionary blog expressing excitment for opportunity to be taught by Haleck)
 * http://www.pierfamily.com/wordpress/2013/02/15/zone-conference-with-elder-haleck/ (independent missionary blog expressing excitment for opportunity to be taught by Haleck)
 * http://valjudybushmission.blogspot.com/2013/08/zone-conference-missionary-comings-and.html (independent missionary blog expressing excitment to meet Haleck, and stating celebration held in his honor when he came to reorganize a stake)


 * Portuguese:
 * http://escrituradodia.blogspot.com/2012_06_29_archive.html (independent compilation of inspirational quotes - includes Elder Vinson with other church leaders from different decades, suggesting the long-lasting impact his teachings are considered to have on the church)


 * Sorry for the length, but about half of it is the sources themselves. -Vojen (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, coverage like http://www.mic.gov.to/news-today/press-releases/5031-government-signs-agreement-with-lds-church-to-further-cyclone-development-assistance- indicates sufficient degree of notability (representing an int'l church network towards multiple national governments). --Soman (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Vojen's excellent argument on the subject on this and other deletion pages like it. By the way, thanks for notifying me about this deletion discussion. If it were not mentioned on the deletion review for Terence M. Vinson, I might never have known about it. Again, I believe we do articles a great disservice when we nominate them for deletion rather than taking time and effort to instead discuss their issues on the article talk pages to bring them up to Wikipedia standards. The higher road would be to exert every effort possible to ensure articles meet Wikipedia standards. It is obvious you are not willing to take that higher road. It also seems to be evident that no line of reasoning will satisfy you. I am in favor of keeping this article. I believe that if we as editors worked together, we could get this article up to appropriate Wikipedia standards in no time. But it's obvious you're not interested in doing so. I don't get why articles about Second Quorum members are being unfairly singled out when there are several other poorly sourced or unsourced articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted before these ones are, if poor sourcing is the real issue here. But I'm not about to mention specific articles. Doing so would be signing such articles' death warrants. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:03, 1 September 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.