Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Henry Petersen

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. Sandstein 16:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Henry Petersen[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)

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Assorted WP:BEFORE searches have not provided any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, just mentions and name checks. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. Church News is owned by the LDS Church, and Stories of Our Mormon Hymns was published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excluding book sourcers because of who their publisher is becomes a really, really bad precedent. This especially applies here where it adds up to an attempt to exclude a whole subject of inquiry from Wikipedia coverage. It is built on flawed understandings of reliability, control, and indepedence. Deseret Book Company operates as a for profit company. Two and three levels of ownership to prove a connection to an organization that the subject has no control over creates too broad a system of exclusion. This is especially true when one considers the broad way in which publishing companies operate, which is a very different model than the way newspapers operate. The decisions about book content have much less to do with ownership either in this case or in general than in newspaper publishing. Basically this nomination is built around trying to apply the same standards to evaluate book sources we sometimes use to evaluate newspaper sources, but with no recognition of the real process of building these sources, and totally ignoring the the largest factor in evaluating books is who the author was, and that J. Spencer Cornwall was a leading figure in musical sources and is a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If the subject was actually wiki-notable, reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject and provide significant coverage would be easy to find. None appear to exist. All available sources are ultimately owned by the LDS church, making them primary, as per my rationale in the nomination. It's also important to keep WP:SPIP in mind, which states:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources are no better in quality than all the other LDS articles up for nomination. Szzuk (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 28 October 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.