Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Schettler

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Schettler[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 subject that fails WP:BASIC. This source listed in the article provides some information, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one.

The second listed source in the article is from the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History, which is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. Primary sources such as these do not serve to establish notability.

Assorted WP:BEFORE searches have turned up little other than name checks, which is not significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant reliable source coverage to establish notability under WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have two sources, the biogrpahical encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History that are indepdent of the subject, especially considering the second was published nearly a century after his death. Beyond that the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saints history was written and edited by respected academics, and to exclude it as a source purely based on its publisher makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – a book published by a publisher that is owned by an LDS-related holding company, the latter of which is wholly owned by the LDS Church equates to a primary source, in my opinion. It's also important to keep WP:SPIP in mind, some of which is listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. Spam. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 30 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.