Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeGrand R. Curtis Jr. (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Church Historian and Recorder. There is rough consensus that the sources we currently have are not quite enough for a standalone article. Sandstein 08:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LeGrand R. Curtis Jr.[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)

Non-notable individual associated with the LDS Church. A WP:BEFORE brings up only WP:ROUTINE passing mentions, which seems to be what the majority of the sources are - indirect mentions of Curtis, but not actually about him and is very WP:REFBOMB-like. Therefore, these sources are lacking WP:SIGCOV for a BLP. Short bios by the Church don't really advance notability either. Overall, fails WP:GNG. This article was previously deleted in 2018 and many of the concerns then echo concerns now. StickyWicket (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. StickyWicket (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Church Historian and Recorder. As Church Historian, Curtis is one of the most important officials of the LDS Church outside of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He's also ex officio, but I think also in reality, the head of the The Joseph Smith Papers project, which is of great scholarly importance to historians of American religion even outside the LDS Church.[1] This makes his name a very plausible search/inquiry term. When the article was previously deleted, he had not yet been named Church Historian. Jahaza (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC) (updated Jahaza (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple articles by the independent Deseret News and KSL. I'm not sure how the nominator considers multiple in-depth paragraphs directly of and about the topic to be "routine passing mentions". ––FormalDude talk 08:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I agree that most mentions are passing. He's only been in since 2019, so perhaps substantial coverage will appear in time. Caro7200 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the rationale offered by FormalDude, unless the nominator contends that KSL and the Deseret News are not sufficiently significant, reliable, or independent sources, which is not directly germaine or relevant to this discussion. It is also worth noting that work is underway to establish specific notability standards and guidelines foe articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, including for top leaders of the Church, consistent with Wikipedia policy. It strikesme as somewhat discourteous and disingenuous by Wikipedia standards to actively single out articles and topics about the movement for deletion while discussions about finding the best policy-based solutions to the longstanding issue are actively underway. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I use Deseret News often for music articles and think it's fine. KSL? Not sure. Neither are wholly independent. The biggest problem is that the cited sources don't offer significant and substantial information about Curtis himself; I also didn't find much in ProQuest (A lot of "Curtis returned from Liberia..." stuff). There's nothing wrong with being merely accomplished rather than notable in the encyclopedic sense... I'm an "inclusionist" (shudder), so always happy if someone can find better coverage. Caro7200 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources make credible claims of significance, such as detailing his history within the church and various high-level positions that he has held. ––FormalDude talk 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantive independent sourcing. The Deseret News is owned by the Mormon Church (through holding companies) and is obviously not an independent s source about church officials. Other coverage simply reports that he issued press releases for the church, saying little or nothing about the subject himself. Just a flack with a grandiose title -- Vivian 166.149.176.27 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Deseret News is owned by a church holding company, but it has editorial control over what it publishes and therefore consensus is that it is independent for topics about the LDS Church. ––FormalDude talk 21:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that doesn't appear to be exactly the case--or this is out of date. Note that I argued for a redirect, not a delete, but another look at sources, both cited and not, don't add up to enough for me. Again, happy to review secondary sources that are actually about Curtis. Caro7200 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At over 5 years since the most recent discussion, it is stale, and I believe there's at least rough consensus that it is independent. ––FormalDude talk 01:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Church Historian and Recorder. Even if we accept for sake of argument that the Deseret News is editorially independent of the LDS Church, the sources still don't add up to notability under the GNG/WP:BASIC. I've reviewed the sources cited in the article as well as others, and although they contain quotes from Curtis about various issues, they don't discuss him in the depth needed to qualify as sigcov. There isn't much more here than the occasional "Elder Curtis said", and that is neither independent of Curtis nor coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". I agree that a redirect to the Church Historian and Recorder article, where he's listed, is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:26, 3 August 2022 (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.