Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen


 * 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   no consensus. As is common with mass nominations, it would be better to nominate them individually and thus I am closing no consensus with no prejudice to immediate re-nomination here Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wilford W. Andersen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subjects (Anderson and the bundled biographies of LDS Church leaders below) are not notable in the WP:GNG sense; I did not find significant independent coverage of the subjects in reliable sources. Significant coverage occurs in publications owned or supported by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church News, Deseret News, Ensign, Liahona, Lds.org, etc.), but because of the subjects' positions within the church, the sources are not independent of the subjects.

MULTIPLE NOMINATIONS: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

All the subjects are included in the list section List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please indicate whether your opinion is to Keep all, Delete all, or Redirect all, or if there you feel differently about certain articles, clarify which your votes refer too (e.g., Delete all except Koichi Aoyagi).

Redirection to the "Second Quorum" list section above is an option instead of deletion. I favor deletion as I don't see the benefit to redirection in this case; searching for a name on Google or typing it in Wikipedia will still get you to the list page.

For other AfD discussions of biographies from the same "Second Quorum" list section, see: ––Agyle (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Closed Articles for deletion/Larry Y. Wilson Result: Delete
 * Closed Articles for deletion/Kevin S. Hamilton Result: Delete & redirect
 * Closed Articles for deletion/Gregory A. Schwitzer Result: Redirect
 * Closed Articles for deletion/Terence M. Vinson Result: Redirect
 * Closed Articles for deletion/Jairo Mazzagardi Result: Delete
 * Closed Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Dyches Result: Delete (closed 6 July 2014)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep all I am trying to be understanding about all these articles being nominated for deletion. But I don't believe any Wikipedia editor has the right to nominate a bunch of articles at once. I still believe that independent sources that satisfied WP:GNG could be found given an appropriate amount of time. I still maintain that currently-serving general Church leaders are relevant article topics and that the articles should be worked on to improve them before straight up nominating them for deletion. I also maintain in particular that the article about Martinez is relevant because he is the first General Authority Seventy to be called from the Caribbean Area. I also believe that the Ochoa article has relevance because he first served in the general presidency of the Young Men before the time of his call. However, I also recognize that the consensus has ruled to delete the five articles above, and that a consensus to delete will likely result from the Dyches article, as well as the articles mentioned above. You may find this hard to believe, but I am not on Wikipedia all day every day. This means I only have a limited period of time per day to see what changes have been made and to give my opinion on items in question that concern me. I believe that these articles can and should be improved and that sources independent of the Church can be found. But it's clear my opinion doesn't make a difference and doesn't amount to much. So, at the outset, I would say that, since I have expresed an opinion, this will likely be my only comment. I would encourage all those involved in this discussion to be courteous and respectful, even as opinions differ. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jgstokes, I appreciate your constructive opinions. Bundling multiple deletion nominations together is an established practice covered in the AfD guidelines at WP:BUNDLE. I disagree that more time would help find significant independent coverage in all or nearly all of these cases, at least searching for information among online sources. Serious researchers/journalists with a travel budget could dig up obscure/old local coverage of some people, but that's unlikely for these articles. I also disagree with your reasoning on Martinez & Ochoa; they may be notable in the generic non-Wikipedia sense, but if they didn't attract notice of independent sources, don't meet WP's notability criteria. ––Agyle (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jgstokes, you're being somewhat disengenuous. Here, you argue "I don't believe any Wikipedia editor has the right to nominate a bunch of articles at once."  In the past, you've argued that they should be bundled.  p  b  p  13:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep O. Vincent Haleck. Haleck has received significant and consistent coverage in the Samoa Observer, which is a kind of "newspaper of record" for Samoa. He's definitely a notable person within Samoa and American Samoa. (Some of the coverage in the Observer amounts to little more than regurgitation/repackaging of LDS Church press releases. I do think that the fact that the Observer reports on such items is at least somewhat significant, though. Other news outlets in the Pacific have also done similar things, such as Scoop.) At this stage, I haven't investigated the others in enough detail to warrant an opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good Ol’factory, the Somoa Observer article you added is an unmodified LDS Church press release, somewhat confusingly attributed at the bottom to "Newsroom", which is the name of the publication the LDS Church used to issue the press release. (Or technically, Intellectual Reserve, Inc., which owns Newsroom, used it; they're an LDS Church subsidiary). Press releases are specifically listed in WP:GNG as not independent from the issuer. ––Agyle (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that one is, but there has been other coverage, the links of which are now unavailable, but which appeared in the print copy. As I mentioned above, even when an independent source reproduces a non-independent press release, I think it bears some significance as to notability of the subject. If the person or subject was deemed by the source to be of no consequence, why reproduce the press release? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can think of other reasons, but even if it's because the editor finds the subject notable, and may connote some notability in the generic sense, my interpretation of WP:N is it shouldn't count toward Wikipedia's notability. Maybe I'm misinterpreting its intent, but WP:N's sections WP:GNG, WP:WHYN, and WP:SPIP lead me to the that conclusion. "We require that all articles rely primarily on 'third-party' or 'independent sources' so that we can write a fair and balanced article..." I'd take a moment to read them if you haven't before. ––Agyle (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read them, thx. I think the guideline as written is probably ambiguous as to what exactly it means for WP notability when a reliable source reproduces a non-independent press release. I would argue that if that is all you have, then the person is probably not notable, but if you have that in addition to other stuff that indicates notability, then it's at least a further confirmation of notability, if nothing else. In any case, this is just one of the examples of the Samoa Observer reporting on Haleck's activities, and the others aren't reproduced press releases, so I think there's still a good argument that he's notable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's true, I'd count Somoa Observer as one source (more than one is the requirement). Unfortunately I couldn't find them; the cited dead-link articles aren't on archive.org, and don't seem searchable/retrievable from the Observer's site; perhaps you need to subscribe, or perhaps they did an upgrade and didn't put archives online. If it becomes make-or-break, I'll contact the paper for help. I Googled more extensively (nice unusual name!), and found no significant coverage except material generated by Church-owned entities. Some material considered:
 * Parenting with Spiritual Power (book): 1 paragraph (a sentence, and a quote from Haleck's Ensign article "Having the Vision to Do").
 * Pacific Magazine, Volume 21, Issues 1-5 (book): 1 sentence: "O. Vincent Haleck is governing director."
 * Foreign Consular Offices in the United States, 1996 (book): ~1 sentence directory listing.
 * BloombergBusinessweek "Drowning Kiribati" ~1.5 paragraph passing mention.
 * The Davis Clipper, "Church calls new general authorities" Name listed in long sentence with other Seventies.
 * WorldWide Religious News has an article from LDS Church-owned Deseret News.
 * ––Agyle (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have access to the paper copy of the Samoa Observer articles. FWIW, the Samoa News in American Samoa also printed the same 2013 news release verbatim: . Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I found several more minor mentions using "vince haleck" rather than "vincent"; mostly one-sentence business tidbits: he & brother made execs at family's Quality Inn being built, his boat got a longline fishing license, he was going to join a retirement board but his brother did instead, he co-sued the US government to develop family land, and issued a joint statement with his bro when their KFC franchise temporarily closed. 2-sentence quote here, and there's half a page in a book about his helping his parents prepare for an overnight visit by a prophet (I'd call it not significant, but read it and see; he's referred to as just Vince in the story). ––Agyle (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh. All-in-all, I'm still in favor of keeping this one, but I can also recognize that it's a relatively weak case when everything is considered together. So my keep would be a "weak keep", as they say. Maybe it's a case of him being somewhat notable within Samoa and Western Samoa but not really outside of the islands. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , what are your thoughts on the rest of these fellows? p  b  p  13:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken the time to go through the other ones very carefully and search for possible sources. But it's my sense—and this is just a gut suspicion rather than anything I've actually confirmed—is that there probably is not enough in sources to make the others notable. I can see that there's a fair bit of coverage the Church News, Ensign, Liahona, Deseret News (which are all directly controlled and/or owned by the LDS Church) and few LDS-themed blogs/websites, but not much else outside of these. So I'm guessing the argument for deletion is sound. I notice that some of them are pretty new to the hierarchy; it's possible that in time some things could happen that would lead to more coverage in other sources. (I have been interested in editing these, so I'm not 100 percent unbiased—I don't have strong opinions as to whether all of them should exist or not, but if they do exist, I've been willing to work on cleaning them up somewhat since they are often a bit of a mess when first written.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete all: Not enough independent, reliable sourcing to justify keeping any of these p  b  p  13:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep All These are important religious leaders. Martinez should definately be consdiered seperately because he is the first general authority to date from the Caribbean.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per G. Malm says he is the first one from Sweden. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So? Reliable (non-LDS) sources or it goes.  Saying "they are important" doesn't undo GNG.  p  b  p  13:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who's comment is this "so?" directed to? JPL or me? I made my comment solely to point out that JPL's same rationale for wanting Martinez discussed separately apparently could apply to Malm. I wasn't commenting on the strength of the argument or adding support to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was mostly to JPL, because he's claiming that being an important LDS leader is sufficient for inclusion. p  b  p  04:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I found no independent sigificant coverage of Malm. Two independent articles (here, here) had one sentence listing newly appointed elders, apparently taken from this LDS press release. There's material about presumably different Per Malms, including a physician (1 2), screenplay author (3) and an actor (4). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Question So if we cannot use the Deseret News because it is "owned or supported by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", does this mean we can't use the Washington Times because it is "owned or supported by the right wing", and we can't use the Washington Post for left-wing sourcing?  Our Deseret News article says that there is a joint operating agreement with the Salt Lake Tribune, so can an editor next argue that this is "too close" for comfort?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No guidelines say which specific sources can be used in this case, and interpretions of the guidelines vary. However, I'd say while Wash. Post, Wash. Times, and SL Trib may have political biases, they are adequately independent sources for purposes of notability, while Deseret News and publications owned by the LDS Church are not. WP:N says "'independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", and a basic dictionary definition of affiliated is "(of a subsidiary group or a person) officially attached or connected to an organization". Deseret News is "officially attached" as a subsidiary of the LDS Church, and thereby affiliated with it; Deseret Management Corp's board of directors are all LDS Church general authorities. You might want to seek more opinions at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Agyle (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A more analogous situation (though one that is admittedly imperfect) might be in using the Wash Times as a sole source for articles about the Unification Church or its leadership. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And an article would have a lot more credence if it had sources other than the Washington Times. p  b  p  05:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep All - I think we need an RFC on Mormon church leaders as there is no consensus as to which, if any, posts imply automatic notability. It's a bit unfair to gang nominate like this. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? In the absence of any policy, they fail GNG and should be deleted.  p  b  p  19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Six "second Quorum" biographies were considered individually over the past two months, all resulting in deletion. Later nomination discussions repeated the same arguments, and nominating them individually just seems inefficient for all involved. Individual articles can be still be considered separately, and opinions and results can be split as seems appropriate. I don't see anything unfair about this approach.
 * I inquired about the "automatic notability" argument at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), and the responses suggest that there is no literal automatic notability, but that terms like that are intended as a shorthand for "very likely to be found notable" based on the significant independent RS coverage found for similar article subjects. So far, significant independent RS coverage was not found for similar nominated article subjects, so there was no reason to refrain from nominating these subjects.
 * While you may think there should be literal automatic notability for LDS leaders, it's implausible that such a policy would be enacted at this time, and a "procedural keep" to consider such a change is unwarranted. Agyle (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , are you volunteering to start this RfC? Jgstokes and Johnpacklambert have mentioned an RfC, but it's been two months since the first general authorities were AfDed, and they haven't done it.  Also, what would be your venue for this RfC?  The GNG talk page?  p  b  p  21:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In general (and I realize that this comment is more suited to the proposed RfC than this discussion)—I think that members of the 2nd Quorum of the Seventy are far less likely to be WP notable than some of the other LDS Church general authorities, like apostles. For starters, 2ndQ members are only temporary general authorities, not lifetime ones. Some of them are only in the position for five years or so. Unless they did something that made them notable before becoming a 2ndQ member (like maybe James O. Mason or Richard Wirthlin), I think it's quite unlikely that they will become WP notable for things they do during the short time they are in the 2ndQ. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that observation is not possible without an effect on the object of observation.  This means that there is no such thing as an independent observer.  For wp:notability, this means that even if we had Martians or the Watson of Jeopardy! fame writing newspapers, we would still not have truly independent observers.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's misunderstanding the principle. p  b  p  14:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment At Wikipedia, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability with wp:prominence, not wp:notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep all WP:NPASR without prejudice to merge, except keep O. Vincent Haleck The nomination stipulates that we have significant coverage and argues that the topic is not wp:notable.  This defines merger.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the nomination specifies that there is specific coverage, but it isn't in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Therefore, how much of it there is is irrelevant.  p  b  p  14:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - All due to the availability of sources.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But the sources aren't reliable, independent sources. And it hasn't even been established there are sources for all of these articles.  p  b  p  20:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Keven  At Wikipedia, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability with wp:prominence, not wp:notability. Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - As I initially started writing this I was leaning toward delete, but as I started hashing out the arguments, I now lean toward keep. I am not an expert on all the nuances of Wikipedia notability criteria, but it seems to me that generally speaking we need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The LDS sources are sufficiently reliable. There is a question as to their independence, but I'm willing to ignore that for now (for reasons that will be shown below). My biggest problem is that the coverage doesn't seem significant. The articles for most of these guys are sourced from a single article, which is usually the equivalent of the church's press release stating that the person has been put in the new position, with minimal biographic data to add some flavor. With a little digging some individuals appear significant for other reasons (for example, Kevin S. Hamilton - a similar individual who was recently deleted for the same above reasons might have been kept for his involvement in the CA Prop 8 debate, but I'm late coming to these discussions, and that apparently wasn't considered at the time he was deleted), but the sources used in these articles don't seem to constitute significant coverage.

However, there are exceptions where the coverage is not required. (Coverage creates a presumption of notability, but it is not necessarily sufficient or required.) There is a per se rule with regards to politicians who may or may not have significant news coverage, and the criteria for academics might also apply. Academics can be notable if they are recognized authorities in their fields (being a member of a prestigious board is sufficient to meet this criteria) and their fields are notable, even if there is not significant coverage from independent media sources (verifiability becomes the issue here, so while independent sources are not required to prove notability, they may be needed to verify claims if the only information available on an academic is on that academic's website. The LDS sources do appear sufficiently reliable to verify the information claimed, even if not sufficiently independent to provide notability). Religious officers are a weird blend of politician and academic in that they can have a significant impact on people through their quasi-executive, judicial, and legislative powers, they are clearly authorities in their fields, and most of this comes by virtue of their office and not necessarily from what they did before they got there. I think we should adopt similar guidelines with respect to the Latter-day Saints as exists for the Catholic hierarchy. General guidelines for the notability of LDS hierarchy would answer the question for all of the above candidates for deletion and the previously deleted candidates.

Members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve would probably meet the notability criteria by virtue or their office similar to politicians. These individuals almost all have extensive news coverage from LDS and non-LDS sources, but even in the absence of significant coverage, the impact of these individuals on the membership of the LDS church is significant enough to make them notable. Church members will reference statements of these top authorities in a manner similar to the way American attorneys will cite Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. These individuals speak at least twice a year to the entire church and make visits to various congregations around the world on an ongoing basis. If for no other reason than their significance within their own church, these individuals should probably be treated like academics or politicians, and the issue with these individuals shouldn't be notability, but verifiability. I would also suggest the same for members of the Presiding Bishopric, the Presidency of the Seventy, and possibly the Auxiliary Presidencies. Stake pesidents and bishops are clearly too low on the totem pole to be considered notable by virtue of their office. Though not decisive, they also serve as lay leaders on a part-time basis. Mission presidents are full-time, generally held in slightly higher prestige, but essentially at a similar rank to a stake prsident as far as actual authority goes. (I suppose a mission president may be slightly more likely to be considered notable for their work if they are the first person to bring the church into a new country.) The real debate here surrounds the question of whether Seventies should be notable by virtue of their office and nothing more.

Members of the Third through Eigth Quorums of the Seventy (or however many quorums there are now) theoretically have the potential to play a policy making role for the entire church (the church is governed by the combined consensus of all of the Quorums of the Seveny in the absense of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Tweleve), but this power does not appear to have ever taken effect, and members of these quorums are only considered "local authorities" who serve on a part-time and temporary basis. Their names are not generally known in the church, even in the local areas where they are considered authorities, their sermons are rarely recorded or repeated, and their directions and policies are rarely implemented outside of the individual congregations where they fulfilled a specific assignment, such as reorganizing a stake. The exception would be those members who also serve in an Area Presidency as part of their call.

On the other hand, members of the First and Second Quorums are considered "general authorities", meaning they can go to any congregation in the world and they automatically have the right to take control of the meeting, remove and replace local leaders, and even give policy directives that would remain in effect until revoked by another general authority in equal or higher rank. Rarely does this happen unless the Seventy is on a special assignment, but that is the nature of the office. They are also asked to speak in General Conference, but unlike the Apostles who are generally invited to speak at least once every six months, most seventies probably will only speak once every 5-10 years. When they do speak their words are treated as authoritative, and their sermons will be studied and are often made the topic of discussions in congregations around the world, but the sermons are usually not as closely studied as are the words of the Apostles, and the lower frequency of the sermons means there are fewer available to study. The only real difference between the First and Second Quorum is duration. The Second quorum serves for five years, the First Quorum serves until given emeritus status at age seventy. The other distinction is that notable members of the Second Quorum are typically called to serve in the First Quorum after being released, so the First Quorum is probably more "notable" from a Wikipedia perspective as well.

As a quasi-legislative body of significant weight in the LDS church whose individual members are held in such high regard that their every word is studied and analyzed, I think seventies can be considered per se notable. Would this apply to all quorums, just the First and Second, just the First, or just those who have actually spoken in General Conference (making them and their words the targets of a much higher level of scrutiny and probably public figures on the specific issue in most common law jurisdictions)? What about those seventies who served in Area Presidencies (where they played an active policy making role rather than waiting for an assignment)? In other cases (such as a Catholic Bishop) the concensus apperars to be that they are always found notable, even in the absence of sources. (See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)). This is partly because the assumption is that sources exist, but may not always be readily accessible, but the fact is the office itself seems to be the deciding factor, not an assumption about sources. But even the source issue could easily apply to these officials. The LDS church keeps an extensive archive, and if one wanted one could certainly research the primary sources to analyze the specific activities of these individuals while serving in the office. Primary sources wouldn't provide a basis for notability (secondary sources are the rule), but if we accept notability based on the office then the primary sources could be the basis of beefing up the articles on these individuals.

Again, to summarize, because of the breadth of the actual authority of these individuals, and the way that their words are studied and cited as authoritative when they do speak to a larger audience (especially the General Conferences sermons of the First and Second Quorum members), I think there is a good argument to be made for keeping articles about the whole group being discussed herein. Vojen (talk) 20:56, 14 July 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.