Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terence M. Vinson

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 List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Second Quorum of the Seventy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terence M. Vinson[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin S. Hamilton, GNG trumps being a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Therefore, non-LDS related sources are needed for this article to be kept. As with Hamilton, the sources are not there. Merge attempt was blocked by article's creator. p b p 21:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I blocked your attempt to merge the article in question, but as I explained in the edit summary field, the fact that one article was deleted based on a specific discussion related to that article does not automatically mean that this article can or should be deleted. I understand (and even accept) your point about GNG. A cursory search of Vinson's name on Google yields 28,200 results. One of them I found was interesting, Written in 211, it discusses the possibility of having a Aussie apostle one day. And Vinson is mentioned as one of the possibilities for that. While this may only be interesting trivial information, it is a non-LDS source about him. The conference talk he gave last October was highlighted in Mormonopia, a prominent Church-focused blog. He is the first Australian native to be called to be a general authority. That makes him unique. He represented the Church in presenting to Australia's Prime Minister with his family history. That puts him on a higher profile level than some other members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy because it puts him in the limelight a bit. He will always be remembered for those things. And that's just with data I found on the first four pages. As with the previous discussion, this will likely be my only comment. But I will be monitoring this discussion for whatever outcome occurs. At the outset, I would encourage the dialogue to be respectful, even if and when disagreements on this issue arise. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GOOGLESEARCH. The number of Google hits something gets is not reason for keeping something, particularly if the first page of results doesn't have anything approximating a reliable source. The discussion I referenced discounts the argument that simply being prominent in the LDS Church justifies keeping; if he really was that prominent, he'd have received significant coverage in reliable sources. p b p 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per precedent and my own commentary in other related AFDs. We still require subjects to meet WP:GNG to be considered notable. Some internal standard of famousness or involvement is irrelevant. A key factor in assessing coverage is a consideration of independence. Church blogs, newsletters and websites are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing the notability of internal church functionaries. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I don't even see a reason for a redirect here. A redirect of this kind suggests that the topic is going to be covered in a section of the target article, which I do not think is the case here (although Stalwart111 doesn't say here to which article the redirect should point). My search for sources on this individual produced nothing under Google Books, and the first several pages of my other Internet searches indicated that while he is no doubt a person of some note within the Mormon church, he does not appear to have any wider notability at this point. The references provided in the article as it stands are not from reliable independent secondary sources with editorial oversight-- they are church-news web pages and LDS links, things that could be used to support or augment an otherwise-established claim to notability but which cannot do this on their own. Given that he does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines and that he is not, as far as I know, personally mentioned and at least briefly discussed in a section of the target article (?), a redirect seems unnecessary (if that second "given" is not the case, then a redirect would seem appropriate). KDS4444^Talk 10:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, of course you need to know what those "other related AFDs" are. I mean redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the related AFDs includes this one. He is listed there (along with his colleagues) so I guess it's theoretically possible for someone to search for his name in that context. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now, that's more like it! Thank you, 30 Stalwart knights and three. Yes, a Redirect seems perfectly appropriate to me now. KDS4444^Talk 15:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Proceduarally Oppose First off, I oppose this person by person nomination process. Many of us feel that it is reasonable to decide that ALL General Authorities are notable. Such has clearly been decided about the top leaders of other churches, and there is no reason that this could not be decided of general authrotieis. That is a debate that should be carried on in a very public place, or by nominating all General Authority articles that do not seem to meet other requirements. To do this on a case by case basis leaves too much up to chance. I also very strongly object to the tone of the nomination, and still think it as well as similar ones were written with clear and present antagonism towards all LDS related sources. The interpretation of "independent sources" is far too broad in this case. The implication of what these people do and do not control does not hold up to actual scrutiny. The sources are not controled by the subject in any meaningful way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is not supported by policy. It is perfectly acceptable to nominate articles one at a time, heck, multi-deletion noms of more than about 8-9 are actively discouraged. Secondly, the policy isn't "all General Authorities are notable". The policy is GNG, which requires independent sources. All the sources of this article are from LDS publications, so GNG fails and this should be deleted. p b p 21:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent sources showing notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:11, 10 June 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.