Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsune Ishida Nachie


 * 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. No consensus to delete this article, and a good consensus that the sources provided at sufficiently independent for notability (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Tsune Ishida Nachie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non-notable subject that does not meet Wikipdia's standards for notability, such as WP:BASIC. Source searches have not provided signficant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. North America1000 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This article was "red-listed" as being important enough to be created during Wikipedia Asian Month 2018, I don't see how it can't be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is notable, even if the references are minimal and Deseret News is generally not an accepted source. One strong source can be enough. --Micky (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Religious subjects have no presumed notability on English Wikipedia. As such, one source is not enough, and minimal references that do not provide significant coverage do not establish notability. Also, Deseret News is actually considered to be a reliable source; it is the Church News that accompanies it as a supplement which is a primary source, because it is published directly by the LDS church. could you provide two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject here? Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to establish notability. North America1000 02:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject is not notable because religious subjects have any presumed notability. Rather, the 2 reliable sources provided other than Deseret News indicate notability. As well, I stand corrected on Deseret News, so that is a third reliable source that provides good coverage. As for whether one source is enough, I have seen articles get AfDs and be kept with 1-3 sources, especially for deceased, historical figures. We have more coverage on the average Joe today than we did on notable figures in the past. If the article was red-listed, that is also worth considering. I stand behind my !vote. --Micky (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The three sources presently in the article (perm link) are from Deseret News, Keepapitchinin and Find a Grave:
 * Deseret News is a reliable source.
 * Keepapitchinin is a blog run by a single person, and I feel that its reliability may be questionable.
 * Find a Grave is not considered to be a reliable source, as per Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where it states that, "The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable."
 * – North America1000 03:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - The internet seems to suggest that a whole chapter of Women of Faith in the Latter Days vol. 3 is about Nachie. This would constitute some considerable coverage but I cannot access the book. BUT it is published by Deseret, so would not constitute as a second independent source. (It may also be worthwhile to have a Japanese speaker search some Japanese sources to see if there are any.) Samsmachado (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep since the Deseret News article was published long after her death it is clearly indepdent from her. The nominator has shown a clear animus against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, consistently nominating articles with many sources while ignoring much less sourced articles related to other religious groups. The sourcing is sufficient to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The bias against any religious subject show above is truly absurd. If something is published by a commercial publisher after the death of the subject than it should be able to be counted as a reliable source. The attempts to blackout whole swaths of sourcing going on here is truly absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – The ad hominem personal attack above is a cheap shot, and is entirely false and incorrect. I have nominated articles for deletion for a myriad of topics. As I stated above, there is no presumed notability on English Wikipedia for religious subjects. If you or others feel that this should be changed, then a discussion can be started on a notability guideline talk page, such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).


 * The only potential bias here is a situation where people may be making up their own notability guidelines, such as stating that one source for this subject is "enough", for notability to be decreed as inherent. This is incorrect, because again, this subject has no presumed notability on English Wikipedia. Religious subjects do not get a free pass for an article simply based upon the virtue of their status as being a relgious subject.


 * I have no bias against religious subjects whatsoever. If a religious subject meets notability guidelines, then hey, that's great, no problem whatsoever. Excellent. This Afd nomination is about this subject nominated herein, Tsune Ishida Nachie, and is not a forum for the above user to spout personal (incorrect) opinions about the nominator, nor should it be. Such ad hominem arguments are logically fallacious from the start, and do not address the notability concerns presented herein.


 * Again, if you want presumed notability for religious subjects, then start a discussion and an RfC proposing such, and perhaps the community will agree with it. Blaming a nominator of an article for deletion will not create the presumed notability that you appear to desire.


 * So I ask again, are there even two independent, reliable sources that provide actual significant coverage about the subject? If there is, I will gladly withdraw this nomination upon their provision, if they exist. I haven't found such required sources to establish notability for this subject.


 * Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and making personal attacks, and focus upon content instead. Your personal attacks do nothing to establish notability for the subject, and instead makes it appear that you do not have additional sources to offer, and have instead resorted to an inferior and incorrect means of demonstrating notability, by attacking the nominator. Please read No personal attacks (NPA), and take that policy into serious consideration, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia". For additional guidance, also see WP:AVOIDYOU, part of the NPA page.


 * Sure, I have an interest in the LDS church, but this does not mean that I am biased against it as you have mistakenly stated. Nor does this interest mean that I am then supposedly somehow "ignoring" other topics. I am not required to read articles about other topics if do not want to, and its very suggestion is absurd. In following my interest in LDS topics, sometimes I come across articles about topics and subjects that may lack notability. This is sometimes suggested by articles that are heavily reliant upon primary sources to verify most of their content, and also lacking in independent sources. Furthermore, I perform significant WP:BEFORE searches before nominating anything for deletion. After all of this, an AfD nomination may be initiated. This is a process on English Wikipedia used to better determine whether or not a subject is notable, through discussion about the matter. Now, I could simply WP:PROD such articles, but in some cases, a wider community discussion where input from others is encouraged is more beneficial than prodding. The AfD process can provide more accuracy, which thus can provide a more accurate encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers.


 * Again, two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage, that's all I ask. No passing mentions, no blogs, no primary sources, just two actual usable sources that establish notability per Wikipedia's standards, rather than your own. If the subject is so readily notable, then said sources should be easy to find. However, it does not appear that the subject has gained enough interest from independent, reliable sources for notability to be established, per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 22:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. The Deseret News has been accepted as a reliable source for years. The book published by the University of Illinois Press is also a reliable source. Therefore, the article passes WP:GNG. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The added sources help this subject pass notability. There is a chapter on her in Women of Faith in the Latter Days vol. 3, which I used to replace the blog entry (the author of the the chapter and the blog entry is the same). I suppose the question is whether Deseret News, Deseret publishing, and the University of Illinois press source are "independent" of her. I would say they are independent of her, but we may disagree. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have the page numbers for her entry? They should be added to the reference in the article. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The digital edition I used did not have page numbers. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 15:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep kicking the can down the road? No one but the nominator is arguing for deletion here. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 13:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources clearly demonstrate that this was an important individual shaping the history of a faith with millions of adherents. Sure, most of the sources are religiously tied to the subject, but are independent of the subject even if NPOV should be watched.  I see no current NPOV issues with the article.  We have a useful encyclopedia article with a)no copyvio problems and b) with Verifiable information well beyond a definition, which was why GNG was created in the first place.  How does deleting then improve the encyclopedia?   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:11, 9 July 2020 (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.