- 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 and redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Second Quorum of the Seventy. I carefully read the different arguments presented here. I agree with pbp only partly: LDS church publications would indeed not be independent, but I don't see any reason to exclude other LDS-related sources, such as Deseret News. That said, even those sources barely mention Hamilton. It would therefore appear that he does not meet WP:GNG. However, we do have a List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so I am leaving a redirect to the appropriate section (Second Quorum of the Seventy) of that list. Randykitty ( talk) 17:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Kevin S. Hamilton
- Kevin S. Hamilton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources from non-LDS publications. Since his notability stems from being an LDS church official, that means there are no sources independent of the topic. BTW, claiming keep solely on the basis of being an LDS official is not a valid keep vote. p b p 13:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: Hamilton is not just an LDS official, he's a currently serving LDS offiicial. That makes him relevant. And I'm sure there are non-LDS sources that reference Hamilton. They just aren't often cited because his notability stems from his LDS Church service. A cursory internet search of his name reveals that this same Kevin S. Hamilton played some part in the Proposition 8 situation in California. That is one clearly non-LDS source that could be used. See this link. I find it interesting that Hamilton is being singled out for deletion when there are other articles about men who have served as members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy and the only sources listed are LDS, but no one is nominating those for deletion. An article isn't eligible for deletion simply because it uses LDS-related sources. Often someone in the Church is not in general in the public eye unless and until they get called to general Church service. Therefore, most of the sources available that cite information about them are LDS-related. I would be unalterably opposed to deletion of this article because Hamilton's current service makes the article about him relevant. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 19:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Stokes, you don't understand notability guidelines. First off, being currently serving doesn't make you more notable. Being an LDS official at any time doesn't make you notable. Having a blog post about you doesn't make you notable. Being about as notable as another poorly-sourced article doesn't make you notable. And, yes, an article requires sources independent of the topic to pass GNG and be kept. Please read GNG and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before commenting further in deletion discussions p b p 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per being a general authority. According to the article on that subject there are only 99 of them and they are the highest officials of the church. So I deem this kind of Bishop like status to be defacto notability. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 19:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Candle. I'm not familiar with the inner workings of the LDS, but he does appear to hold a very high post in it. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm happy to change my vote if notability can be shown, but the mere fact that someone holds a position of authority in a religious organization does not make them notable. I see he is a general authority, of which there are currently 106 in the LDS Church, and he is in the Second Quorum of the Seventy, which I interpret to be lower on the list, i.e., no an apostle or quorum president. Without sourcing showing notability, there's no way to show notability of Mr. Hamilton just as we would require for anyone else, say, a vestryman of any influential large church. I'm big on precedent, and I don't see any prior precedent suggesting that general authorities might be de facto notable. Based on this discussion, many of these Second Quorum articles may have been recently created. To compare to bishops, see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Bishops, where notability has (as always) been based on GNG; I don't see bishops as equivalent to Second Quorum members, as demonstrated by the lack of sourcing this case. LASTLY, for those who want general authorities to have articles despite the meager sourcing, please keep in mind that you are exposing these bios to potential mischief. A well-sourced article is a better protected one, which we always need to consider for living persons.-- Milowent • has spoken 16:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion you linked to makes clear that Roman Catholic Bishops are "rarely if ever deleted". It's a bit like high schools, there is a presumption of notability. And it's not as though we don't have any sources, we have the LDS itself. While not wholly independent, I think it can be considered a reliable source for some content on its leadship and the positions they hold no? Are Catholic sources not used for Catholic Bishops? I know the U.S. government is used a source for U.S. government officials and university websites are used as sources for their personnel. This guy is notable because of his rank and leadership role within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That's what the sources we have establish. It's unfortunate that Google News is no longer functional otherwise we would have more.
Candleabracadabra (
talk) 17:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately your argument boils down to "he's notable because I think he's important and notable." E.g., you can't extrapolate from high schools or bishops without evidence showing that the subject is almost always deemed notable. That's what's happened with high schools, as I spent quite some time proving empirically a few years ago. Church sources may be used to help verify information, but they are not an indicator of meeting GNG. For Google news, one helpful trick is to search at Google "site:google.com/newspapers "search query" ". I tried it for Hamilton a few ways with no luck.-- Milowent • has spoken 17:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion you linked to makes clear that Roman Catholic Bishops are "rarely if ever deleted". It's a bit like high schools, there is a presumption of notability. And it's not as though we don't have any sources, we have the LDS itself. While not wholly independent, I think it can be considered a reliable source for some content on its leadship and the positions they hold no? Are Catholic sources not used for Catholic Bishops? I know the U.S. government is used a source for U.S. government officials and university websites are used as sources for their personnel. This guy is notable because of his rank and leadership role within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That's what the sources we have establish. It's unfortunate that Google News is no longer functional otherwise we would have more.
Candleabracadabra (
talk) 17:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep If people want to maintain and improve this article, the article should remain. It is a good article that is interesting and important to many Wikipedia readers. The criteria should be in the interest of Wikipedia readers. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 19:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't provided a rationale for deletion. It's not a
good article because good articles have reliable, third party references. You haven't provided any evidence that the subject is interesting or important, and, even if you did, being interesting or important in and of themselves are not sufficient reasons for keeping an article
p
b
p 19:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, even a fervent inclusionsist such as I must say that "being in the interest of Wikipedia readers" has not been a legitimate argument since at least 2004. AfD participation ever spiraling down puts these essentially unsourced BLPs at risk (of being kept via suspect "no consensus" closes).-- Milowent • has spoken 19:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't provided a rationale for deletion. It's not a
good article because good articles have reliable, third party references. You haven't provided any evidence that the subject is interesting or important, and, even if you did, being interesting or important in and of themselves are not sufficient reasons for keeping an article
p
b
p 19:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete with all due respect, unless sources reaching our general notability guideline are evidenced. There are extremely good reasons to hold biographies in particular to WP:GNG. -- j⚛e decker talk 17:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 and redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Second Quorum of the Seventy. I carefully read the different arguments presented here. I agree with pbp only partly: LDS church publications would indeed not be independent, but I don't see any reason to exclude other LDS-related sources, such as Deseret News. That said, even those sources barely mention Hamilton. It would therefore appear that he does not meet WP:GNG. However, we do have a List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so I am leaving a redirect to the appropriate section (Second Quorum of the Seventy) of that list. Randykitty ( talk) 17:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Kevin S. Hamilton
- Kevin S. Hamilton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources from non-LDS publications. Since his notability stems from being an LDS church official, that means there are no sources independent of the topic. BTW, claiming keep solely on the basis of being an LDS official is not a valid keep vote. p b p 13:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: Hamilton is not just an LDS official, he's a currently serving LDS offiicial. That makes him relevant. And I'm sure there are non-LDS sources that reference Hamilton. They just aren't often cited because his notability stems from his LDS Church service. A cursory internet search of his name reveals that this same Kevin S. Hamilton played some part in the Proposition 8 situation in California. That is one clearly non-LDS source that could be used. See this link. I find it interesting that Hamilton is being singled out for deletion when there are other articles about men who have served as members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy and the only sources listed are LDS, but no one is nominating those for deletion. An article isn't eligible for deletion simply because it uses LDS-related sources. Often someone in the Church is not in general in the public eye unless and until they get called to general Church service. Therefore, most of the sources available that cite information about them are LDS-related. I would be unalterably opposed to deletion of this article because Hamilton's current service makes the article about him relevant. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 19:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Stokes, you don't understand notability guidelines. First off, being currently serving doesn't make you more notable. Being an LDS official at any time doesn't make you notable. Having a blog post about you doesn't make you notable. Being about as notable as another poorly-sourced article doesn't make you notable. And, yes, an article requires sources independent of the topic to pass GNG and be kept. Please read GNG and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before commenting further in deletion discussions p b p 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per being a general authority. According to the article on that subject there are only 99 of them and they are the highest officials of the church. So I deem this kind of Bishop like status to be defacto notability. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 19:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Candle. I'm not familiar with the inner workings of the LDS, but he does appear to hold a very high post in it. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm happy to change my vote if notability can be shown, but the mere fact that someone holds a position of authority in a religious organization does not make them notable. I see he is a general authority, of which there are currently 106 in the LDS Church, and he is in the Second Quorum of the Seventy, which I interpret to be lower on the list, i.e., no an apostle or quorum president. Without sourcing showing notability, there's no way to show notability of Mr. Hamilton just as we would require for anyone else, say, a vestryman of any influential large church. I'm big on precedent, and I don't see any prior precedent suggesting that general authorities might be de facto notable. Based on this discussion, many of these Second Quorum articles may have been recently created. To compare to bishops, see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Bishops, where notability has (as always) been based on GNG; I don't see bishops as equivalent to Second Quorum members, as demonstrated by the lack of sourcing this case. LASTLY, for those who want general authorities to have articles despite the meager sourcing, please keep in mind that you are exposing these bios to potential mischief. A well-sourced article is a better protected one, which we always need to consider for living persons.-- Milowent • has spoken 16:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion you linked to makes clear that Roman Catholic Bishops are "rarely if ever deleted". It's a bit like high schools, there is a presumption of notability. And it's not as though we don't have any sources, we have the LDS itself. While not wholly independent, I think it can be considered a reliable source for some content on its leadship and the positions they hold no? Are Catholic sources not used for Catholic Bishops? I know the U.S. government is used a source for U.S. government officials and university websites are used as sources for their personnel. This guy is notable because of his rank and leadership role within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That's what the sources we have establish. It's unfortunate that Google News is no longer functional otherwise we would have more.
Candleabracadabra (
talk) 17:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately your argument boils down to "he's notable because I think he's important and notable." E.g., you can't extrapolate from high schools or bishops without evidence showing that the subject is almost always deemed notable. That's what's happened with high schools, as I spent quite some time proving empirically a few years ago. Church sources may be used to help verify information, but they are not an indicator of meeting GNG. For Google news, one helpful trick is to search at Google "site:google.com/newspapers "search query" ". I tried it for Hamilton a few ways with no luck.-- Milowent • has spoken 17:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion you linked to makes clear that Roman Catholic Bishops are "rarely if ever deleted". It's a bit like high schools, there is a presumption of notability. And it's not as though we don't have any sources, we have the LDS itself. While not wholly independent, I think it can be considered a reliable source for some content on its leadship and the positions they hold no? Are Catholic sources not used for Catholic Bishops? I know the U.S. government is used a source for U.S. government officials and university websites are used as sources for their personnel. This guy is notable because of his rank and leadership role within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That's what the sources we have establish. It's unfortunate that Google News is no longer functional otherwise we would have more.
Candleabracadabra (
talk) 17:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep If people want to maintain and improve this article, the article should remain. It is a good article that is interesting and important to many Wikipedia readers. The criteria should be in the interest of Wikipedia readers. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 19:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't provided a rationale for deletion. It's not a
good article because good articles have reliable, third party references. You haven't provided any evidence that the subject is interesting or important, and, even if you did, being interesting or important in and of themselves are not sufficient reasons for keeping an article
p
b
p 19:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, even a fervent inclusionsist such as I must say that "being in the interest of Wikipedia readers" has not been a legitimate argument since at least 2004. AfD participation ever spiraling down puts these essentially unsourced BLPs at risk (of being kept via suspect "no consensus" closes).-- Milowent • has spoken 19:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't provided a rationale for deletion. It's not a
good article because good articles have reliable, third party references. You haven't provided any evidence that the subject is interesting or important, and, even if you did, being interesting or important in and of themselves are not sufficient reasons for keeping an article
p
b
p 19:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete with all due respect, unless sources reaching our general notability guideline are evidenced. There are extremely good reasons to hold biographies in particular to WP:GNG. -- j⚛e decker talk 17:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.