Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An addition to the Book of Mormon. It does not matter whether it is authentic or not; the only issue here is whether it is notable. I submit that it is not notable and this article is pure spam. Warning. There has already been blatant sock puppetry in the talk page. Expect more here. &mdash; RHaworth 06:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I think, that the assertion is that this book what is talked about in this article Golden_plates which is the subject tons of notable works but not the same thing. The book referred to in this article doesn't even have passing mentions except on a couple of websites. A search of worldcat only shows it in 3 libraries in the entire US (I'm not sure how to search in the entire world). It is also self published publisher website. Totally fails WP:NBOOK.--Savonneux (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete: it does not meet the notability requirement.Sealednot (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This article on the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon is both notable and worthy of notice. The subject matter has been discussed extensively in the following other articles of Wikipedia: •	Alvin Smith (brother of Joseph Smith, Jr.) •	An Insider's View of Mormon Origins •	Angel Moroni •	Anthon Transcript •	Anti-Mormonism •	Archaeology and the Book of Mormon •	B. H. Roberts •	Book of Mormon anachronisms •	Book of Omni •	Cumorah •	Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. •	Golden plates •	Joseph Smith, Jr. •	Laban (Book of Mormon) •	Limited geography model •	Linguistics and the Book of Mormon •	List of Latter Day Saint movement topics •	Lucy Mack Smith •	Manuscript •	Mark E. Petersen •	Mark Hofmann •	Mark Hofmann •	Mormonism and engraved metal plates •	Mormonism and Judaism •	Mormonism Unvailed •	Origin of the Book of Mormon •	Paul R. Cheesman •	Plates of Nephi •	Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting •	Record of the Nephites •	Record of the Nephites •	Reformed Egyptian •	Salamander letter •	Search for the Truth (video) •	September 21 •	Standard Works •	Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints)

Evidence that this particular article on the subject is both noteworthy and worthy of notice is established, in part, by the extensive debate concerning the claims made by Christopher Marc Nemelka about the Sealed Portion discussed in the article. This debate has continued for several years, as revealed in the following websites, discussion groups, and media coverage:

axiominvestigator.blogspot.com/.../responses-to-chris-nemelkas-answers.html

blog.mrm.org/2010/05/authorized-and-official-biography/

bookofmormononline.net/blog/the-sealed-portion/

books.livingsocial.com/lists/1017083-atheism-agnosticism-religion?

bookstore.xmlwriter.net/books/search/1-Christopher+Saint.html

dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299

en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries

en.fairmormon.org/Specific.../Christopher_Marc_Nemelka

en.wordpress.com/tag/christopher-marc-nemelka/

en.wordpress.com/tag/the-book-of-mormon/

entreated.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

es.fairmormon.org/FAIRMormon:Portal_de_la_comunidad

fr-ch.wordpress.com/tag/the-book-of-mormon/

freesitereview.blogspot.com/

gooleoo.com/.../comment-on-the-sealed-portion-by-getterdone481.html

groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299

groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299

groups.yahoo.com/group/marvelousworkandawonder

iipuu.com/youtube.php?vq=nemelka&type=youtube

ilovemormons.wordpress.com/.../a-marvelous-work-and-a-wonderful-sequel/

ldsmovement.pbworks.com/Marvelous%20Work%20and%20a%20Wonder

marvelousworkandawonder.com

memoirsofamormoncynic.blogspot.com/.../sealed-plates.html

memoirsofamormoncynic.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html

mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/.../sealed-portion-of-book-of-mormon.html

mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12907

mormonmatters.org/.../have-you-read-the-sealed-portion-of-the-book-of-mormon-yet/

mybookshop.blackapplehost.com/store/christ1.htm

ndgmedia.com/products/Golden-Plates.html

news.justia.com

onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/.../the-spiritual-wife-doctrine/

packham.n4m.org/prophet2.htm

pearlpublishing.net/store/bookdetails/tsp.htm

polygamybooks.org/.../why-would-an-american-want-to-convert-to-islam.aspx? prfree.com/index.php?action=preview&id=24607

sealednot.wordpress.com

successdb.com/tag/lds+church/2/

thetruth.dontexist.net/O/pdf.php?text&file...pdf

www.123people.com/s/christopher+read

www.amazon.com/Sacred-not-Secret.../dp/0978526473

www.aolnews.com/topic/christopher-nemelka

www.apologeticsindex.org/680-polygamy-sects

www.asamonitor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18131&pid...

www.bookhills.com/The-Sealed-Portion-The-Final-Testament-of-Jesus-Christ-0978526465.htm

www.bookhuddle.com/book/2433743/The-Immortal - Cached

www.bookrenter.com/the-sealed-portion-the-final-testament-of-jesus-christ-0978526465-9780978526467

www.canadastandard.com/index.php/ct/7

www.connorboyack.com/blog/luciferianism

www.couol.com/books/author-Christopher+Marc+Nemelka

www.directtextbook.com/.../sealed-portion-the-final-testament-nemelka

www.easybooksearch.com/book_description/0916847012

www.examiner.com/Subject-Christopher_Nemelka.html

www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon506.htm

www.exmormonforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=11025&sid...

www.freeread.com/archives/2725.php

www.ghostvillage.com/ghostcommunity/lofiversion/index.php?t25833...

www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/reply.php?messageid=90367...5...

www.groupsrv.com/religion/about109499.html

www.irshelp.biz/products/Golden-Plates.html

www.iyares.com/books/s/?q=Jesus+the+Final+Days

www.josephsmithbiography.com/

www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1463

www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008_09_14_archive.html

www.massweed.com/products/Golden-Plates.html

www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/11887-lost-pages-of-bom-resurfaced/

www.mormonstruth.org/massacre.html

www.mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm

www.newsrunner.com/entity/top-stories/christopher-nemelka/.../0/0

www.nydailynews.com/topics/Christopher+Nemelka - Cached - Similar

www.puppstheories.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4615

www.shelfari.com/o1518327948

www.thesealedportion.com/

www.univision.com/video/buscar.jhtml?query=+NEMELKA&modifier...

www.utlm.org/onlineresources/letters.../2005january.htm

www.wikio.com/.../general-books-reviews-49894-page25-sort0,b.html

www.wikio.com/.../the-sealed-portion-the-final-testament-of-jesus-christ-8015269,b.html

www.wwunited.org

www.yasni.de/person/nemelka/%20/nemelka.htm

www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5u_jzCzV48

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXm6VM6LHA

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvessels (talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I personally don't have the time to go through each of those sources individually right now but I can already tell that many of them probably don't qualify as 'reliable sources' as Wikipedia defines that term. You want to avoid things like personal blogs, forum/BBS postings, YouTube videos, promotional websites (in most cases) and small or unreliable wikis. With that being said, there might be some reliable sources in that list; I didn't go through them all. Another issue is whether this article is about 'the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon' (presumably a general aspect of, or relating to, LDS theology) or 'The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon' (a specific published book on the topic by a specific author). There are different notability standards depending on which it is. Just because 'the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon' (presumably a theological concept) is mentioned on other pages does not mean this specific book on the topic is notable. --MidnightDesert (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment By that logic I could write a book titled "Salt" and include every web page that mentioned "Salt" as evidence of notability. This is a specific work, I suggest reading WP:NBOOK, it is an official guideline applied to all book articles. Quick summary of threshold standards: Books should... be available at a dozen or more libraries..., and the part on self published works: it should be especially noted that self-publication... indicates, but does not establish non-notability. --Savonneux (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Savonneux, for your comment to mine. Each of the websites, discussion groups, and media references is a "reliable source" in that they are active, productive online discussions, debating the pros and cons of various controversial issues involving the subject matter. More importantly, to respond to your last point, EACH site I have sourced includes specific debate, pro or con, on the specific subject of Christopher Nemelka's claims that the "sealed portion" referenced in this article is what it purports to be.

Please let me know if there is other evidence I can provide you to establish that this article is, indeed, notable and worthy of notice.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvessels (talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rvessels, you may want to take a look at Reliable source examples. --MidnightDesert (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Article creators comment
Hi Roger, To make certain I understand your comments from various other locations, my personal talk, the discussion page, and other contributors comments, that essentially unless we have 3rd party sources- something published directly about this proposed article content/subject, (and not just one or two but a lot of things that I suppose you or I would might refer to as main stream media) if I read your comments correctly above, you'll be deleting this whole thing a Spam; is that right? - I would think if you could give us more time,(1 or 2 weeks perhaps?) from the simple list that Rod Vessels provided above, that we could provide the "notability required" to justify its ability to comply with Wikipedias requirements and remain as a legitimate article. -Thank you for your time Roger, I do appreciate the efforts you've made to try and help in the way you best see fit- I personally wish I/we could make this work somehow - I believe it would be quite helpful for many as a good source to find information... Do we still have a few days left to find notability reference or are we just wasting everyones time and you've already made up your mind? Sincerely and Thank you- Johnny 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI (talk • contribs)


 * AfD discussions remain open for seven days. But why do you need time - if the evidence of notability does not exist now, it is not going to magically appear in the next few days. Your COI is obvious so my best advice is: allow the present article to be deleted. You may be confident that once the book becomes notable, an established Wikipedia editor will write about it here. &mdash; RHaworth 07:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment So not only do you falsely accuse me of "sock puppetry" above and on my talk page, you are now telling me I have a Conflict of Interest? Amazing how you get to know so much about another human being whom you've made presumptions about whom you've never met- This was Never a Conflict of Interest for me- I would GLADLY welcome people to post somthing tangible instead of name calling on this discussion - I do not feel it has been anything but bias to get it deleted for your own agenda- you even admit it! "Get real man - all I have done is moves to get the article deleted" (So much for "do not bite the newbies" policy) I feel differently -otherwise I would NEVER have taken the time to post this to begin with - I believe it is Noteworthy - it is something I (and many others) have read about for the majority of my lifetime waiting in anticipation - and I think this one here is of interest so have the majority of others who have commented as well-


 * This comment from you should raise a red flag that what you've said isn't correct- even you realize something isn't right- I've not made any of this up, there are no "sock puppets" and I am NOT Christopher! You wrote yesterday "I can understand your creation of a number of sock puppets to support you but what is the rationale behind creating Sealednot (talk • contribs • logs) who argues for deletion? — RHaworth" I'm sure Sealednot doesn't even have the answer for that - he certainly opposed Christopher or anything to do with him/it/ but he I'm sure will attest to the fact I am not him and if he's even remotely sincere he will also admit I never asked him to add any comments- he did it of his own respected free will.


 * Bottomline - this article was simply set (with good intent) to be a place where information can be recorded and added to over the years as more and more information is published about it- I see other wiki articles for books that are not in question like this is and don't see why it is such a difference? It seems the only valid question is the "opinion" of what is and is not notable- I do not see any comments about the actual article in question - if the information is bogus or not applicable or false then say so- but that's not the case is it, somebody always want's to shoot the messenger because of the message. Johnny 02:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI (talk • contribs)

Relisted
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Commentt Although the subjct matter "The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon", is a documented subject in the Latter Day Saint Movement, this appears to be a new revelation, as such the article seems to fail to provide significat references that establishes it owns notability. Being about a notable subject does no confer nobility. It looks like a prmotion for a new religious text. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm happy to seek a consensus as well - but what is it exactly you are hoping we'll all concede to? Unless I'm mistaken, the only applicable concern is the "opinion" of what is and is not "notable", or are there additional concerns that must be answered before someone at Wikipedia pulls the Deletion Notice or the article itself? The article on Notability; specifically about "Controversy" seems to directly apply here. I hope my earlier comments will not be brushed off but at this point what is it exactly that is needed to keep this article in place? Please define the specific requirements you feel I need to meet to keep this article in place- and please don't kill it with a long punch-list because we all know there are articles currently active and un-noticed that do not have the same amount of scrutiny being expected of this one, and they would fail. I personally would simply like the article left as it is and get on with life.


 * As for the comment above "It looks like a prmotion for a new religious text" I personally don't see how it is any different than the majority of "books" currently listed on Wikipedia- I took the format of this article after reviewing quite a few others- They all seem to try their best to not be biased - but whoever created the article to begin with created it because of how they felt about the subject- Honestly can you tell me how any of these articles would be here if someone didn't feel passionate about it? Why are their "critics" of this work; because some feel passionate "against" this and want to stop it- while others feel the passion "for" it. If neither of us existed Wiki would not exist there would simply be no interest and nothing "notable" could be defined - Everyone who writes here has a personal value associated for doing so, hopefully its that it brings a good service to others and makes them happy in doing so- Hope this helps, Thank you, Johnny 04:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, MWAWWIKI. Generally, we determine whether or not a book is notable based on the criteria found at Notability (books). As you can see, there are five main criteria. As far as I can tell, this book definitely does not meet points 2, 4 or 5.
 * User:Rvessels put forward a list of references/sources (see above, on this page) in order to try and show that this book meets point 1. Unfortunately, I don't think he was familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines for what constitutes a "reliable source." You can see this page: Reliable source examples, for a guideline. If you have a list of independent, reliable sources that meet these guidelines and cover this book, please put them forward here (and try and integrate them into the article). That would help establish notability.
 * As for point 3, it states: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." It is possible that this book has made a significant contribution to a notable religious movement, I'm not sure and the article itself doesn't establish this. Maybe you can clear this up? The key point is 'notable.' If, for example, this specific book is widely used or is central to a notable religious parish, sect, movement or group (or what have you) that has its own Wikipedia page, that would most likely meet notability standards.
 * You're right that these guidelines aren't the final word. That is to say, there is controversy and debate around the notability standards and we can be flexible. However, please look at the "threshold standards" under WP:NBOOK. In general, books should be available in at least a dozen libraries and they should be catalogued by the Library of Congress. If User:Savonneuxis right that this book is only available in 3 libraries then this book definitely does not meet the bare minimum threshold standards.
 * You're also right that there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that cover non-notable topics and should probably be deleted. That isn't a valid argument for keeping other articles on non-notable topics though. There are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia and many, unfortunately, go unnoticed. If you run across articles that you feel don't meet notability, feel free to nominate them for deletion or bring them to the attention of another editor. --MidnightDesert (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * MidnightDesert - Thank you for your comments- they seem more constructive than destructive. There is a lot to read above and below with others references- I'd like to point out first that each of the authors books have had an LCN (Library of Congress Number) and I have gone to libraries in my area and am able to request a copy for my reading pleasure if they don't have one in house so to speak; so the "3 libraries" comment doesn't seem currently applicable. - When I read your comment "There are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia and many, unfortunately, go unnoticed." I can't help but think how this article shouldn't be any different yet's its infamous notability has obviously struck a chord with some. I will take your suggestion to look for additional sources and attempt to integrate them into the article as applicable. Johnny 06:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability comment- The TSP's ISP shows their independent web-statistics for the month of May; that this book was downloaded 15,798 times. Johnny 16:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI (talk • contribs)


 * Comment Webtraffic is barely a factor in WP:WEB and this isnt even a web content article, it's a published (albeit self published) book and books have to meet WP:NBOOK (which is a subset of WP:GNG).--Savonneux (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * * Comment Thanks Savonneux, right you are about the WP:WEB and that this isn't a "web content article" I'll look at the WP:NBOOK here over the weekend - Johnny 23:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI (talk • contribs)


 * Comment This should not have been relisted. It does not meet wiki standards: "Being about a notable subject does no confer nobility." Another point in fact.Sealednot (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and possibly rewrite - I agree with the many editors who have pointed out the non-notability and lack of reliable sources about this book. The book appears to be eminently non-notable.  I couldn't find a single news article that discusses the book or the controversy associated with it.  Christopher Nemelka does not appear in any news articles.  HOWEVER, the concept of "The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon" is notable. (See, for example, ) It is this particular book that claims to be "Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon" that is non-notable.  Thus, it would be legitimate to have an article under this title that discusses the concept of "The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon".  The material from http://www.mormontimes.com/article/8643/studies/mormon%20q&a could form the basis for such an article. --Richard S (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't believe this book is notable enough to merit its own article at present. It might, however, be appropriate to merge some of its information into Golden_plates if reliable sources can be found. Namely, it might be noteworthy to document that a man claims to have documented the sealed portion, which is published in this 2004 book. —Eustress talk 18:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This "book" is completely non-notable.  I live in Utah and I've never heard of it.  It seems to be a complete fabrication.  While Joseph Smith claimed that there was a section of the golden plates that he was not allowed to "translate", this isn't it (since, in my POV, there never were any golden plates).  There isn't any notable "controversy" concerning this fabricated work.  --Taivo (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article does seem more like spam than anything else. It does not meet the standards of notability yet. Maybe in the future, but today, someone seems to be promoting their own soapbox. -- Storm  Rider  20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Being a "complete fabrication" neither gives notability nor precludes it. The Book of Mormon which is a notable book is considered a complete fabrication by most Christians. the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a notable fabrication. Salamander letter is another notable fabrication. Notability is not equivalent with truth. However, notability has not been established for the "sealed portion...." Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aside from the TLDR and canvassing, ultimately this is a case where the notability of books guidelines should be fulfilled. They aren't, nor do basic searches find reliable independent sources that are covering the book. The fact it's a work of fiction doesn't matter- many made-up books and religions are notable. Ultimately, what matters is that outside of the book's publicist and FAIR, apparently nobody cares. tedder (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I hate to be the only one against 7 delete: chances are my vote will be worthless. However, I would first flag the article with and  and ask for scanned pages before bringing something to AfD. It seems like this has not been done. It's easy to delete, people, difficult to write articles. Now this book easily passes Notability (books), so you are going against WP rules here. --SulmuesLet's talk 14:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're reading, but this book passes none of Wikipedia's book notability tests. --Taivo (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Passes point 1. And the fact that it's self-published is completely irrelevant. --SulmuesLet's talk 15:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Notability criterion #1 - From Notability (books), : The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial  published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,  with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
 * If the article provided even one reference to a published work that discussed the book (e.g. newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews), this discussion would be less one-sided.  A quick Google search failed to turn up any such mentions either of the book or its author.  Do you know something we don't? --Richard S (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If this wouldn't count, then, delete it. My thoughts are that reviews are not easy to be done for a "general" audience if the target is a religious book. --SulmuesLet's talk 16:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * does sort of qualify as a reliable source although the title Salt Lake City Weekly sounds like it's one of those free alternative newspapers so the reliability is a bit suspect. Let's ignore that for now.  It is at least the closest we've gotten in this discussion to a reliable source.  However, it's hard to make a whole Wikipedia article from that one source.  Are there any other sources?  Recall that criterion #1 requires "multiple non-trivial published works".  If there is as much controversy as is claimed, why has this not made the mainstream media?  The book is not only an admitted fraud, it seems to be a non-notable fraud.  There are many such frauds in the world.  We can't have an article on every one of them. --Richard S (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The SLC Weekly has its own Wiki article, which puts it a little closer to being a reliable source, at least: Salt Lake City Weekly. I still contend it doesn't matter if the book is a fraud or not- the same argument is still ongoing about the Book Of Mormon about 180 years after it was written. The main point is that it hasn't received much attention. The SLC Weekly article helps, it'd be good to see more. tedder (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't need scanned pages - the entire text is available for download. Have you looked at it? &mdash; RHaworth 16:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't matter if the content is a fraud, but it does matter if the content of the websites that you are using to support the book's notability is fraudulent. The part that says members have been excommunicated for reading the book is fraudulent.  Since that's based on fraudulent web site information, there are levels upon levels of fraud in the discussion of this book.  --Taivo (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tavio - you are speaking out of wishful thinking, ignorance or prejudice here but certainly not from your own investigation- the website is not fraudulent nor are the words therein - The burden of proof falls on you to backup your claims; "The part that says members have been excommunicated for reading the book is fraudulent." the comment "is fradulent" is unsubstantiated; interview them for yourself, like I and others have.
 * Those who claim it as fraud should be heard as to why they think it is, but the burden of proof is on them. Christopher's response to such alegations was made on the article in question, let it speak for  itself-  Johnny 06:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jonnhy, your websites are not reliable sources and your "personal interviews" are original research so are not valid for Wikipedia's purposes. In other words, there is no reliable evidence that anyone has been excommunicated because of this book.  This book fails every test of notability.  --Taivo (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tavio, I thought we'd come to a mutual agreement above "  "Thanks Savonneux, right you are about the WP:WEB and that this isn't a "web content article"  " I got side-stepped with your comment about the excommunication. My effort is to write this Wiki Article about the book not the website(s) nor anyones personal stories - they may be a contributing factor as to why I wrote this article in the first place but I completely agree again - that this isn't a "web content article" nor any current discussion about it, so, with respect, how can your comments be used here? It was your web based comment "no reliable evidence" that brought it up to begin with- It also apears that a Sr. Editor;"> Sulmues  Let's talk has already stated this article does meet (Passes point 1.) criteria above also disagrees with your statement "This book fails every test of notability." - Thank you- --Johnny* Johnny 16:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (PS- I've used the 4 tildes since day one - User:Tedder is helping me correct that problem.)


 * Tavio, my apologies - I did not realize your comment about "excommunication" was from the actual Wiki Article - I thought you were referring to the book's home page (thesealedportion.com) I re-read the article and adjusted it accordingly: "Some former members who have accepted The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon claim to have been excommunicated from the LDS Church for apostasy." Thank you- JohnnyR (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please spell my name correctly. Just because Sulmues says that it meets the notability standard doesn't mean that it does.  Sulmues is an editor just like the rest of us and he/she can be just as wrong as anyone else.  The Wikipedia standard is substantial mention in "multiple reliable sources".  There isn't any "multiple" here at all and the "reliable sources" aren't really reliable sources at all according to Wikipedia standards.  The book fails all notability tests despite what Sulmues claims.  And, by the way, my first edit on Wikipedia predates Sulmues' first edit by three years, so calling someone a "senior editor" really isn't appropriate.  --Taivo (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Taivo, I took no offense when you misspelled my name above- it was certainly not intentional :-) But I will try again as I always do, to not misspell it... again - dyslexia is not fun. To the subject at hand, I found 2 additional sources for information I thought applicable - The [| LDS] article by Bruce R. McConkie in the section I added: "LDS Viewpoints" may fail to meet the immediate notability requests yet will be important in establishing further notability of the topic and the actual book. The other, "Controversial Doctrines", was added because I found an article in the [American Chronicle] by another editor who has written quite a few articles of his own; [Christian Church] and I feel there will be many more like user:sacrednot and user:getrdone481 and others who could constructively, instead of abusively, add their actual references there. More to follow - Thank you, JohnnyR (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (I misspelled your name to make the point that you were misspelling my name. Please be more careful in the future.  Thank you.  --Taivo (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC))
 * So, you added two "references". The first was a blogger at American Chronicle, a site Wikipedia hasn't looked at very fondly (in other words, would probably not pass muster as a reliable source). And I can't find a link for the actual article you imply was written at American Chronicle, though that's sort of a moot point. The second "reference" is a quote from some higher-up in the Mormon church that doesn't even mention the book or the author in any way. These are not reliable sources. These do not help prove notability of the book in Wikipedia's terms. A review in a reliable historical journal or the New York Times would, but mentions on blogs or advertising by the publicist don't help at all. tedder (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * * Added Civil Court information - Christopher Nemelka vs. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, et. al, Civil Case No. 070910537, filed in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, State of Utah. (July 2007) which is specific to the book, it's author and contents. JohnnyR (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A minor civil suit for defamation regarding something the Church said about the book still doesn't make it notable. The whole article is nothing more than an advertisement and self-promotion.  There is still zero evidence that this book passes Wikipedia's notability test.  --Taivo (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me agree here- it's a primary source that doesn't include any legal outcome. I could sue Taivo, but that wouldn't make me notable. tedder (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * * My turn... Let me  dis agree here- This notable lawsuit was brought against two  "Apostles" , some of the highest ranking officials of the LDS church Jeffery_R._Holland and M._Russell_Ballard and another "notable person" Hyrum_W._Smith all three of which Wikipedia says are notable enough to merit their own pages - yet the court judge acknowledged the evidence of defamation against the book author From These Three Men! His claims concerning the Sealed Portion were sufficient to go to trial - yet that was denied by the self same judge granting "immunity". This you say is not notable and "nothing more than an advertisement and self-promotion"? Amazing how the point of having articles published in Wikipedia - "to bring a quick encyclopedic reference with the intent to cover existing knowledge which is verifiable from other sources" is missed. I and a few others here have shown that this BOOK is notable and verifiable and worth keeping around for future references to further prove its validity or as some have slandered it as a fraud. Taivo presumes to know my motives for even beginning this article in the first place and accuses it of "nothing more than an advertisement and self-promotion" I could do the same for the large egos here; Taivo writes "I misspelled your name to make the point that you were misspelling my name" mine was accidental - his; intentional, so how is that constructive? Again it goes to show there are very few non Wikipediholics interested in seeing this article improved instead of deleted.


 * So I guess this process of reaching consensus may be long and drawn-out. I feel it is notable and getting more so with each passing day. The well known Salt_Lake_City_Cemetery here in Utah on June 16th is having a notable event about the book and the author with the press invited to attend- no, the NYTimes is not coming - over time I hope this article will continue to grow in complete neutrality with added articles that all sides can agree on. Reaching neutrality is never going to happen while the article creators are nit-picked instead of offering up ways to improve the article.


 * I have to laugh about two of the people (Non-Wiki Editors) who follow this article - user:getterdone481 & [| SealedNot] both monitor everything they can find to destroy anything to do with this book or it's author (Yet never reveal their real names)- they constantly write about it or have their own agendas for making sure this becomes un-notable to the world- oviously it is notable enough for them to comment consistently in the negative about it - I'll bet they've never even commented on a Wiki Article before this one! Bring this article into the light and let them post their views and opinions as well, don't hide them - welcome them! I'm sure there are many more out there as well. But there are also others like myself who read the book and were deeply impressed by it - so much so that I enquired about it and seek to find out more about it and because none of you nor I know everything, created this article as an additional point of reference that the public can contribute their findings to as well. I urge you to allow this article to grow like others have - not a one of which got where it is today by a lack of contributors- Let this article stand on it's own merits and within a reasonable amount of time if no one has actually contributed to it then you'd be very justified in doing what you want to do - the same thing User:RHaworth wanted to do the moment he saw it; "Get real man - all I have done is moves to get the article deleted"


 * I personally don't care if you like or hate the article and never read the book or think it's fantastic- the fact is; it is notable in and of itself, if for no other reason than the entire LDS Church is expectedly looking for the book- yet completely miss the marc entirely. Best intentions JohnnyR (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look at the preceding comments, there already is a consensus--to delete the article. There are only two of you that voiced any support.  The court case just isn't enough.  Wikipedia's standards are non-trivial references to a book in "multiple reliable sources".  That standard just hasn't been met here.  There are lawsuits filed every day against notable persons, but that doesn't make the plaintiff notable.  Notability isn't like a virus, you don't catch it by contact with notability.  Each item must stand on its own notability--it doesn't rub off.  --Taivo (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A consensus of a few editors is pleasantly confined to those few, while thousands, ultimately millions, across the globe do in fact and deed catch the books notability in real personal ways every day. People from all over the world continue to discover and read the book on and off-line and much like a virus it is spreading to every part of the planet. Even as those searching the internet for the book may not find a reliable source of information at Wikipedia, the book will continue to seize eminence in spite of a minute consensus. JohnnyR (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When and if "millions" drink the Kool-Aid, then Wikipedia's notability requirements might be met. Wikipedia is a reporter of facts, not a predictor, and certainly not a platform for a personal sales pitch.  --Taivo (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Facts - yup the never-changing yet ever-changing Facts; Facts by consent of notability do not a true statement make. Facts do not often enough tell the  real truth  and are as flexible as the common consensus of the current day, to which I'm sure you'd have been first in line to agree, that the Earth was Flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth. Truth_by_consensus does not make it true anymore than truth by deletion or ignorance makes it false. Millions now drink the Kool-Aid of Wikipedia - by admissions from above many articles shouldn't exist, and yet they do; many more to come and many more to go all permitted or denied by personal platforms & sales pitches from Wikipedia reporters of "facts" be they notably approved for or notably against the article of the current day. JohnnyR (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't about truth. See WP:TRUTH and WP:V. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for original ideas. Articles are kept or deleted based on consensus, usually regarding their fit to an encyclopedia of information that is verifiable and found in reliable sources. Please don't turn this into a discussion about what reliable sources are and what truth is. There are avenues for that. Again, wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a vehicle to advertise a non-notable book that is trying to churn the waters with no response from the other party. tedder (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (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.