Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce L. Olsen

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce L. Olsen[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet WP:BASIC. Most of the sources in the article are primary, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike the person who nominated this article for deltion, I have a copy of J. B. Haws Oxford University Press published The Mormon Image in the American Mind. That book devotes a whole 5 pages to significant discussion of Olseon's impact on LDS public relations. I think this is enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, not just one (bold emphasis mine). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet is also says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", which would suggest if the coverage is substantial enough in one source, that is all we need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I view "multiple independent sources" as exactly as it reads, with multiple meaning more than one, as in two or more. Unclear how one could ascertain "multiple" to suggest that only one source is needed, which isn't the intention of the wording in the guideline at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The passage I quote makes the multiple only needed if the "depth of coverage" is not sufficiaent in one. Of course, this all boils down to your attempts to block off all LDS Church sources, which is questionable in its own right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC does not state that only one source is needed if it's content about a subject is substantial at all, not even in the slightest. Notice how the lead of the section states that multiple sources are required. This also pertains to point #1 of the section. Point #1 of WP:BASIC is intended to be used when two or more sources exist that provide a typically lower depth of coverage, whereby they can be combined to demonstrate notability. The lead information and point #1 of WP:BASIC is listed verbatim below, with the exception of the bold emphasis I have added, to emphasize "multiple", which means two or more. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

Comment -- The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether it is verified by multiple sources. I norm ally refrain from voting on LDS AFDs. In this case the source is a book from a leading UK academic publisher. In devoting a number of pages to the subject, it will inevitably have multiple sources. This is not a case where we have snippets from a couple of newspapers or websites of dubious reliability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the few actual !votes, despite good discussion, I think a relist is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced that being managing director of public affairs of the Mormon Church is notable enough to warrant an article. The public affairs position isn't mentioned at all in the LDS article, so it's unclear how significant it is to hold that title. The single book used for sourcing seems like it would be a better prospect for an article, but it's still only one source, as discussed above. Absent other sourcing, this fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.