Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William D. Oswald


 * 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. Bordering on no consensus. Seems like the question here boils down to whether Deseret News is independent from Mr. Oswald enough to qualify as an "independent" source. If Mr. Oswald was the owner or otherwise in direct influence or control of the newspaper the case would be open and shut, but since they are apparently only connected through the Mormon church (i.e indirectly) it's a lot more questionable. Purplebackpack argues that the source is not independent and the argument is legit, but so are the counterarguments (including an article that is critical of the subject, not something that commonly happens with dependent sources) and they outnumber the delete case. There are some other sources as well but didn't receive much discussion. Accusations of bigotry need a lot more evidence than what was offered here, too. PS: It seems like a similar article with identical considerations was already discussed and kept at AfD and the ruling upheld by deletion review and the closing admin Iridescent when it was appealed on their talk page. For a moment I was thinking it was the same article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

William D. Oswald

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No INDEPENDENT sources (i.e. nothing but LDS.com, Deseret News and other LDS publications, which CANNOT be considered independent as his notability stems from being an LDS official), either in the article or as result of a Google search. p b  p  22:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The Deseret News is indepdent of Oswald.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh...no. The Deseret News is controlled by the LDS church.  Oswald draws his notability as an official of the LDS Church.  Ergo, not independent.  p  b  p  01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - We've been though this before, the Deseret News is a reliable source when reporting on LDS-related issues. The nom and only the non has been hell-bent for years trying to discredit the Deseret News but failing to gain a consensus for their point of view. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_212 and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_210.--Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)  Changing to Neutral based on Deaddebate's assessment of significant coverage, not because of the Deseret News as a reliable source. --Oakshade (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)  Reverted to "Weak Keep" based on the coverage provided by John Pack Lambert, Deseret News and other sources. --Oakshade (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Inaccurate, . Most discussions on this topic, including the second one you've linked to and a number of AfD discussions, have several other editors signing on to the belief that Deseret News isn't independent.  Several AfDs have been closed as delete on the basis that a preponderance of editors believed that the Deseret News was not independent.  BTW, Oakshade, maybe instead of accusing me alone of being "hellbent", you could actually provide a reason for why the Deseret News is independent.  It pledges to promote an LDS way of doing things, and is indirectly controlled by the LDS church.  I think that makes it pretty clear it has a POV that skews toward promoting LDS topics that non-LDS sources would not consider notable.  p  b  p  20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to make the case that the Deseret News is not considered a reliable source, you need to do so on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for deeper community input. But you've already done that twice and you've failed to gain a consensus for your belief.  The community has spoken despite your persistent efforts.  You can't just push your own agenda in single Afd that's outside of community consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Oakshade, but those two discussions do not indicate a community consensus for your position (and I might add that, while I participated in those discussions; neither was STARTED by me). At Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_210, a majority of people who weighed in in the discussion doubted the notability of Deseret News.  As for Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_212; THREE people said Deseret News was independent; that's NOT a set-in-stone consensus that forbids future discussion.  BTW, I'm still waiting for an actual reason as to why Deseret News is independent; all I've gotten is "a few people say it is".   You've said nothing insofaras refuting my above point about the Deseret News being controlled by the church and pushing the church's point-of-view.  p  b  p  00:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you failed to gain consensus for your position that the Deseret News is not a reliable source for LDS-related topics. (Two can play at the boldface game.)  That's where you need to make your case for your position and you've not succeed at that. --Oakshade (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not need a RS consensus to nominate this article or any other for deletion. Saying I do is overly bureaucratic.  Consensus as to whether this particular article is notable or not can be determined right here.  And I've repeated several times here and elsewhere why Deseret News is NOT independent (indirectly controlled by LDS church, committed to pushing a point of view consistent with LDS doctrine), and you have yet to give any actual reasons why it is.  Probably because there are none.  All you've done is say, "PBP shut up, you don't have consensus at some other rando page".  And that's neither necessary nor a good argument.  If consensus for Deseret News being independent was so clear and evident you've have laid out the rationale here instead of beating me over the head. (I might add actual reasons for the Deseret News being independent are missing from half of the "Deseret News is independent" statements in the two discussions you're so dang wedded to).  p  b  p  13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is weather the DeseretNews is independent of Wiliam D. OSwalld. which it clearly is. Oswald never did have any controlling imput into the Deseret News. PBP's arguments are a special kind of bigotry designed to limit the inclusion of Latter-day Saint related articles in Wikipedia by defining out of existence as reliable sources much of the LDS related media. To doubt that the Deseret News is a "notable source" shows down right ignorance of the American newspaper landscape. The Deseret News is a highly significant newspaper that in the last 10 years has been at the cutting edge of several major news developments. The failure to grasp this on the part of some editors, and the downright hostility shown it by PBP, shows major biases on the part of some Wikipedia editors against understanding anything except their own narrow navel-gazing focus on the costs, ignoring 99% of the world population by their reliance on sources that reflect only the concerns of those who live in California, Oregon, Washington, and from Virginia to Massachusetts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please spare us the rant about Kellerism. And "Oswald never did have any controlling imput into the Deseret News" isn't how you define independence.  If you work for a company, and get your notability from working for that company, the company rag (which Deseret News basically is) can't be used to assert your notability (it can be used to cite facts, but it can't be the only source in the article), whether or not you write the company rag.  Nobody would dispute this if the relationship was between a business and a publication, or between a musical group and a publication.  But it's "bigotry" if the relationship is between a religious group and a publication?  Not on, sorry, JPL.  Deseret News isn't independent, I'm not alone in believing that, and neither I nor anybody else (and there are others, as Oakshade's discussions and previous AfDs note) are bigoted for believing that.  We just want Wikipedia articles to be independently sourced, and you can't do that with the Deseret News.  p  b  p  15:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Regardless of Deseret News' independence, neutrality, etc. the article still doesn't have any citation or reference to a Deseret News article of him. Here is a list of the Deseret News articles mentioning him.  Somebody please review the list and determine if any of these articles themselves are notable.  Until one of these articles are referenced within the William D. Oswald article, then the William D. Oswald article is still poorly sourced.
 * I've added some cleanup hatnotes to the article as well. - Deaddebate (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough about passing notability guidelines regardless of what a user thinks of a certain source. Maybe I jumped the gun in taking at face value comments above regarding the significant coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Even if Deseret News is not wholely independent, he has received enough coverage for WP:GNG in my opinion. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added multiple sources. These I think clearly show that the Deseret News is indepdent of Oswald, this article is not a very positive article on him, although maybe not as negative as it could be. Clearly there are more sources on him than have been admitted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added more sourcing on his role as an RDA attorney. One problem is that his biggest role in this seems to have been back in 1969 or so, which is before any easily available newspaper sources are dated. Howerver the 1991 source seems to indicate him as a major player in this matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Asserting that Deseret News is not independent smacks of anti-Mormon bigotry. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from accusing other people of bigotry, . It's not bigotry, it's common sense.  If this was the same situation but with a corporation instead of a religion, I doubt you'd be complaining about exclusion of biased sources.  p  b  p  02:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please properly distinguish between statements aimed at attitudes and those aimed at editors. I am not accusing anyone of actually being a bigot, merely pointing out that the accusations leveled against the Deseret News, solely on the basis of ownership, are not defensible.  William D. Oswald is not, to the best of my knowledge, an owner or employee of the Deseret News.  News outlets are allowed to select their own topics and cover topics of interest to their owners and readership, including that of co-religionists, without being per se non-independent.  Assuming otherwise ABFs against an external organization. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Deseret News is owned by a holding company in turn controlled by the LDS Church. Wouldn't that make any official (including Oswald) an "owner" in some respect?  As for ABFing, I think you cast the net of what's independent far too wide, particularly since you're including a publication pledged to promote Mormon doctrine.  p  b  p  15:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Mormon Church, or its individual holding companies, are not the subject of this deletion discussion. One particular LDS individual is.  His status as a religious leader does not grant him control over the Deseret News, much like a stockholder is not entitled to free inventory from a company in which they have some small interest. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see those two things as particularly analogous. p  b  p  01:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Deseret is a WP:RS on facts; even on facts about Mormons. Just as, say, Coverage in Deseret supports notability because it is a major regional daily; however because it is owned by a holding company controlled by the Church, it is usual to support notability with coverage from additional WP:RSes. Which this article has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, note that his activities can also be sourced to [The Salt Lake Tribune], [House Panel Tables Bill Restricting Power of Redevelopment Agencies: [NW Edition], Gorrell, Mike; Tribune Staff Writer. The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 27 Jan 1991: 10B. ].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2016 (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.