Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randy D. Funk[edit]

Randy D. Funk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to other LDS general authority articles that have been deleted: a general lack of significant coverage anywhere and most of the info is ripped from LDS sources that aren't independent enough to establish notability. Would note that none of these type of articles on Second Quorom figures has been definitively closed as keep. pbp 13:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I really feel like we need a bright line rule as to which members of the LDS hierarchy are notable because of the office they hold and which would require additional material to be considered notable. It looks like there has been a number of requests to delete articles for members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, most of which end in Deletion, and the last of which was inconclusive. I wrote a response to the last one, but unfortunately I appear to have joined the discussion too late in the debate, as no one responded to my suggestion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilford_W._Andersen for my original proposal.
The gist of my argument is that the common factor among the articles being cited for deletion is that the only notable feature of these individuals is that they are members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. After looking into the issues, I personally feel that the fact these individuals hold a sufficiently high position of authority in the LDS church is in and of itself sufficient to establish notability. Before you say this is not an acceptable standard and that Wikipedia requires notability purely based on the sources, hear me out. The primary complaint from advocates that the articles be deleted is that lack of independent sources. The existence of independent sources is a strong indicator of notability, but it is not absolutely required. There is a long standing exception for politicians and a de facto exception for Catholic Bishops. Members of the press typically gets a pass on this issue. (See for example Melissa Block, Corey Flintoff, Steve Inskeep, Bob Mondello, Guy Raz, Craig Windham and much of the other NPR personalities. They're millions of Americans who probably listen to these people every day, including myself, but there aren't always many non-NPR sources to prove their notability.) Sometimes notability can be established without independent sources. The problem in these cases isn’t notability, but verifiability.
As this specific request relates to Randy D. Funk, let’s use him as an example of why a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy is notable based on his office and nothing more.
Randy D. Funk, Esquire’s professional career was probably a great career, but not particularly notable (at least not up to the Wikipedia standard). He was a partner in a law firm, but this would not make anyone notable in and of itself, and is unlikely to make someone the object of international renown or distain unless he was involved in a very notable case.
President Randy D. Funk’s service as an LDS mission president in India is more notable, but statements by mission presidents are generally not recorded for wide distribution (sometimes missions will maintain local mission newsletters, but these are generally only distributed locally to missionaries serving in the mission or sometimes to members living in the mission, and rarely generate wider attention than by those closely connected to the mission country.
However, Elder Randy D. Funk’s status as a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy (the act that made him a General Authority) immediately made him a topic of interest by people around the world both favorable to and antagonistic to the LDS church. This event took place in April 2013, and we immediately see his name start to appear in sources around the world. I would argue that the office and the office alone is what makes him the subject of favor and disregard. Here are some sources to support that claim:
German
Portuguese
Spanish
English
Then Elder Funk was invited to speak in General Conference. He was already a topic of international discussion and even admiration by virtue of his office and nothing else, but the General Conference talks are where these guys really start to get attention.
English
Portuguese
And then he gets one of the bigger assignments. He was asked to serve in the Asia Area Presidency:
English
Spanish
Other
Japanese
Not shown in the above sources, but the interesting thing is that once someone becomes a General Authority, all of their actions before becoming General Authorities also come under heavy scrutiny, because General Authorities are supposed to be models of a good life their entire lives, and previous bad conduct makes the church susceptible to criticism. Generally these people have little in their past that would cause one to question their overall moral character (nothing appeared evident in researching Randy Funk, except for the actions of a different man by the same name in Iowa), but when anything is discovered it typically becomes the source of much discussion both in and outside of the church.
While I believe the above sources are more than adequate to demonstrate how Randy Funk's notability has changed as a result of his office (again, he's done nothing much more substantial than acquire the office), the problem with most of the above sources is that, with few exceptions (primarily the LDS sources), they would serve as very poor reference material for writing a decent article. The article would end up being a source dump in the reference section just to prove notability, and every article would require an in depth discussion on the talk pages about general attitudes of veneration and/or disregard for LDS General Authorities and the scrutiny their every act and word faces in general to prove the notability of each individually. That's why a standard approach to the office would be preferable.
Anyhow, I support keeping this article (and articles for all other members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy), but only by virtue of the fact that he holds the office. Nothing else that Funk has done makes him notable, so if the community decides to keep him, they should keep all of the members of the Second Quorum (and First Quorum), because they have similar claims to notability. If the community decides Funk’s office is insufficient of itself, then I see no reason to keep his article, and I doubt there will be many other Seventies who pass the notability standard, as most lead relatively low profile lives prior to the call.
Vojen (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vojen:, for starters, TLDR. Your comment was over 13,000 characters long. And even being that long, it doesn't make a convincing case for keeping the article. It ignores GNG. Nearly all the sources provided are neither independent nor cover Funk significantly enough to justify keeping this article. pbp 23:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89:Apologies for the length. I didn’t realize there was an explicit standard on that point. I’ll see if I can come up with a shorter version to repost later (I don’t have time tonight.)
As a quick response to the charge of ignoring the GNG, the answer is YES, that’s exactly what I’m doing. Funk doesn’t qualify under GNG. However, a careful reading of Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability_(people) reveals that GNG is a default standard by which a presumption of notability can be created when NO OTHER basis for notability exists. However, when we are dealing with people, explicit exceptions to GNG have been carved out and two rules take precedence: Basic and Additional. If Basic fails, we look to Additional. If Additional also fails, then we look to GNG. Meeting any of the criteria is good enough for notability purposes. We are not required to meet Basic or GNG if one of the Additional criteria applies. Establishing notability this way eliminates the need for completely independent sources. See the articles for the NPR personalities I mentioned in my above vote for good examples where this has been the case.
The issue then becomes verifiability. The LDS sources are sufficiently removed from the control of the subject to constitute reliable sources, especially as the basis for notability would arise out of the church’s elevation of the individual to a particular church office, and a primary source whose very existence proves an element of the fact in question (i.e. a statement by said church to the same, or the general conference address deomonstrating the individual's assumption of the office) is sufficiently reliable to prove the notability even if not completely independent. The guidelines for people notability state that an article may still need to be merged with another article due to insufficient sources that can provide verifiability, but we can verify the fact in these cases through reliable sources.
It's true that a good article will be well researched and meet GNG anyway, but that is a secondary question not pertinent to deletion in the case of people when notability is established under the Additional people criteria. I never claimed these were good articles, but the appropriate response is to put notices asking for additional independent sources, as was done for most of the articles for members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, as well as for some of the NPR people mentioned before (e.g. the Craig Windham article has the one source tag and should probably get the third party tag, but these are separate issues from notability for people as there is an explicit journalist exception).
Not to reiterate too many of my arguments that you didn't read (again, sorry for the length), but the guidelines for people explicitly provide a much lower threshold for politicians, academics, journalists, and winners of awards than do the GNG. Though not a codified standard, the de facto standard that is derived from the codified rules is that high-ranking clergy are generally found to be notable, and there are specific guidelines in place for the Catholic hierarchy that reflect this. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism/Notability_guide#People. The sources I reference were not to prove that Funk meets GNG (I don’t think he does), but to demonstrate that his office serves as the basis for notability. Any finding of notability will arise out of whether we determine his office is comparable to that of a Catholic Bishop. In reality I think statements by him are subjected to greater attention, veneration, and critical scrutiny than that of most Catholic bishops, which is what I tried to establish with my sources above (pay particular attention to the critics and the homilies that cite him). That is why I voted Keep. The answer of whether the office is the equivalent to a Catholic bishop is where this discussion should be decided, not GNG.
Vojen (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found Vojen's argument on Wilford W. Andersen's page to be well thought out and well reasoned. I understand the concerns about GNG, but Funk has received international coverage, and I don't think that's something we can ignore. Additionally, I still maintain that we do articles a great disservice when we quickly move to delete an article rather than taking the time and care that should be taken to make it better and resolve issues of concern. To me, a nomination for deletion should be a last resort only implemented when all other efforts to improve an article have failed. To do less than this is to not give what could potentially become a very good article a sporting chance. And that's not the Wikipedia way. I urge all concerned to follow Wikipedia policy and discuss article issues thoroughly to get them resolved before attempting to nominate them for deletion. If this cannot happen, then I at least plead for civil discourse as we discuss potentially deleting such articles, if it must be done. This will likely be my only comment on this issue. I have no desire to engage in debate. But I will be watching this discussion closely to see what the outcome will be. To all who participate, I wish you well. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been live for months and it hasn't been sourced. As for "having the potential to be a very good article", there's no way it's getting to FA or GA with the URLs Vojen scraped. It doesn't even pass GNG with those sources! For all your "urging people to follow policy", you're the quickest to ignore it. pbp 03:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said that my previous comment would likely be my only one on this issue, and it will be. I am not here to comment on the issue of deletion of this article. I am here to comment on something else. What's with the personal attacks? The fact is that I always assume good faith. However, from your last comment, Purplebackpack89, it is obvious that you are not assuming good faith on my part and are instead stooping to personally attacking me. You should know that doing so is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and if you continue to not assume good faith on my part and attack me, I won't hesitate to report your misconduct to the administrators. I leave this with you to reflect upon and consider. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jgstokes:, That's not a personal attack nor an assumption of bad faith, but go ahead and report it to ANI if you want. I'll just counter-report you for creating bad articles and voting without regard to policy. pbp 13:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow guys. Really?
First off, pbp, you don’t have to be so snarky. Jgstokes has a valid basis in the rules to vote the way he does. Even under GNG, I provided 30 different sources, 25 of which are independent, and six of which mention Funk specifically in a way that could be construed to meet the GNG criteria. I don’t think it’s good enough (as I pointed out I think the standard for review should be different in this case), but someone can vote that way in good faith without ignoring the rules. Also, the GNG rules explicitly state the sources don’t have to be in the article at the time of creation, just that they have to be provided when notability had been challenged in a proceeding like this one. Done.
Second, an article doesn’t have to have the potential to be a FA or GA to be notable. There are plenty of bad/weak articles that need work and may never get there (probably most of Wikipedia), but are nonetheless valid. I have a couple pet project articles that I’ve been working on little by little over several years. None of them are up to GA or FA status because I don’t have the time or resources and no one else is volunteering. They may never get there, but I can always be hopeful.
Jgstokes, you’re way TOO sensitive. I appreciate your desire to be non-confrontational, but I think you set yourself up for easy hits. You need to learn to roll with the punches. This is an AfD debate. That’s it. I appreciate your support, but whatever the outcome, it’s not that big a deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojen (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Vojen's demonstration of wide-spread, international coverage of Funk.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to say that to assume that article will never reach FA status is to assume too many unknowable things. Much can happen in the coming years that could allow the article to go there. Never assume anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Randy_D._Funk&oldid=1068845139"