 | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2015 March 3. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
J. Devn Cornish
- J. Devn Cornish ( | 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. p b p 13:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - based on the membership in the LDS Second Quorum of the Seventy of the individual. Please see my comments on this issue here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen for justification for my position. Vojen ( talk) 21:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- So we just ignore GNG?
p
bp 23:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. With all due respect to Jgstokes' vote of confidence below, that is exactly what I am saying. The GNG is a default standard for notability when NO OTHER basis for notability exists. The guidelines for the Notability of People governs this decision. The decision here needs to be based on whether the office of a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy is comparable to that of a Catholic bishop, which I believe to be the case. See
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk for a more thorough explanation of why I believe this is the appropriate standard for deciding this case, and why I think these individuals meet this standard.
Vojen (
talk) 03:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- @
Vojen:, lemme stop you right there. There is nothing in
Wikipedia:Notability (people) that references bishops, or religious leaders of any kind.
p
b
p 14:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- You’re absolutely right, and I addressed that in my primary argument that I already made reference to here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk. I said: “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. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy.”
- @
Vojen:, lemme stop you right there. There is nothing in
Wikipedia:Notability (people) that references bishops, or religious leaders of any kind.
p
b
p 14:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. With all due respect to Jgstokes' vote of confidence below, that is exactly what I am saying. The GNG is a default standard for notability when NO OTHER basis for notability exists. The guidelines for the Notability of People governs this decision. The decision here needs to be based on whether the office of a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy is comparable to that of a Catholic bishop, which I believe to be the case. See
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk for a more thorough explanation of why I believe this is the appropriate standard for deciding this case, and why I think these individuals meet this standard.
Vojen (
talk) 03:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- So we just ignore GNG?
p
bp 23:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- To elaborate on this point, at the most basic level one could consider being elevated to a high ecclesiastical office as a great honor. See the Any biography section of the notability for people standards which states: “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.”
- However, being elevated to a high ecclesiastical office could also be compared to a weird combination of politician and academic. Members of this group have quasi-executive, legislative, and judicial powers. The political power is primarily one of influence (with the threat of eternal punishment for failure to comply), but insomuch as believers actually give credance to the orders, the power is significant. And in many countries these powers are explicitly accounted for in the law of the land, particularly with respect to issues of family law. Hence separate courts for Muslims and Christians in many traditionally Islamic nations. This makes their office similar to that of a politician.
- They are also similar to academics, so those standards (see Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)) can also be looked to as a source for this derived de facto standard. The office itself makes them an automatic authority in matters of theology. This is true in the Catholic church, but this is especially true in the LDS church, where the higher emphasis on continuing revelation and the priesthood line of authority makes General Authorities spokesmen for God and their statements very influential if not binding in theological matters and doctrinal disputes, thus leading Mormons to hold their every word and act in such high regard, and making them high-level targets for critics of the LDS church. Sources in my other referenced post demonstrate this point.
- Two notes from the Academic standards: “Academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements.” These men may have spent most of their professional careers in the secular world, but they are known for their work in the field of theology. Also, an academic is considered notable if “the person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association”. The work and mission of the Second Quorum of the Seventy is fairly academic in nature (the LDS scriptures state: “The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.” See the LDS Doctrine & Covenants 107:25-26.) The role is largely a teaching role (similar to academics), the group is definitely selective and it’s pretty prestigious.
- Again, high level clergy are not per se politicians or academics in the proper sense, but because of the similarities in how they are viewed and respected in society, a de facto standard seems to have arisen that high level clergy are in fact notable. A definitive codified standard would be nice, but it’s not necessary. The question in most cases is not whether high level ecclesiastic office is notable, but how high a level qualifies.
Keep I don't believe that Vojen is saying we should ignore GNG. Rather, I believe he is suggesting a different way to look at those that are being nominated for deletion, offering an invitation, if you like, for us to think this through thoroughly before we do something we might later regret. I for one think that Vojen has presented a well-reasoned argument with very valid points that need to be considered. I still believe we do articles an injustice when we nominate them for deletion before attempting to fix the issues that arise with them. I do believe that issues of concern can and should be addressed, but not by deletion discussions. Rather let us seek ways to improve the articles. This is not the place to discuss article issues. If anyone has anything they want to discuss in that regard, please post on the talk page. In the meantime, I would again encourage a respectful discourse and discussion about this very important issue of whether or not an article deserves to be kept. I think it can and should be given a chance to be made better. But I recognize I may be in the minority. This will likely be my only comment on this issue. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 00:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per very well reasoned arguments of Vojen. I could not have said it better myself, so I won't try. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:24, 23 July 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.
| This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2015 March 3. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
J. Devn Cornish
- J. Devn Cornish ( | 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. p b p 13:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - based on the membership in the LDS Second Quorum of the Seventy of the individual. Please see my comments on this issue here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen for justification for my position. Vojen ( talk) 21:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- So we just ignore GNG?
p
bp 23:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. With all due respect to Jgstokes' vote of confidence below, that is exactly what I am saying. The GNG is a default standard for notability when NO OTHER basis for notability exists. The guidelines for the Notability of People governs this decision. The decision here needs to be based on whether the office of a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy is comparable to that of a Catholic bishop, which I believe to be the case. See
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk for a more thorough explanation of why I believe this is the appropriate standard for deciding this case, and why I think these individuals meet this standard.
Vojen (
talk) 03:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- @
Vojen:, lemme stop you right there. There is nothing in
Wikipedia:Notability (people) that references bishops, or religious leaders of any kind.
p
b
p 14:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- You’re absolutely right, and I addressed that in my primary argument that I already made reference to here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk. I said: “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. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy.”
- @
Vojen:, lemme stop you right there. There is nothing in
Wikipedia:Notability (people) that references bishops, or religious leaders of any kind.
p
b
p 14:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. With all due respect to Jgstokes' vote of confidence below, that is exactly what I am saying. The GNG is a default standard for notability when NO OTHER basis for notability exists. The guidelines for the Notability of People governs this decision. The decision here needs to be based on whether the office of a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy is comparable to that of a Catholic bishop, which I believe to be the case. See
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk for a more thorough explanation of why I believe this is the appropriate standard for deciding this case, and why I think these individuals meet this standard.
Vojen (
talk) 03:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- So we just ignore GNG?
p
bp 23:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- To elaborate on this point, at the most basic level one could consider being elevated to a high ecclesiastical office as a great honor. See the Any biography section of the notability for people standards which states: “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.”
- However, being elevated to a high ecclesiastical office could also be compared to a weird combination of politician and academic. Members of this group have quasi-executive, legislative, and judicial powers. The political power is primarily one of influence (with the threat of eternal punishment for failure to comply), but insomuch as believers actually give credance to the orders, the power is significant. And in many countries these powers are explicitly accounted for in the law of the land, particularly with respect to issues of family law. Hence separate courts for Muslims and Christians in many traditionally Islamic nations. This makes their office similar to that of a politician.
- They are also similar to academics, so those standards (see Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)) can also be looked to as a source for this derived de facto standard. The office itself makes them an automatic authority in matters of theology. This is true in the Catholic church, but this is especially true in the LDS church, where the higher emphasis on continuing revelation and the priesthood line of authority makes General Authorities spokesmen for God and their statements very influential if not binding in theological matters and doctrinal disputes, thus leading Mormons to hold their every word and act in such high regard, and making them high-level targets for critics of the LDS church. Sources in my other referenced post demonstrate this point.
- Two notes from the Academic standards: “Academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements.” These men may have spent most of their professional careers in the secular world, but they are known for their work in the field of theology. Also, an academic is considered notable if “the person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association”. The work and mission of the Second Quorum of the Seventy is fairly academic in nature (the LDS scriptures state: “The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.” See the LDS Doctrine & Covenants 107:25-26.) The role is largely a teaching role (similar to academics), the group is definitely selective and it’s pretty prestigious.
- Again, high level clergy are not per se politicians or academics in the proper sense, but because of the similarities in how they are viewed and respected in society, a de facto standard seems to have arisen that high level clergy are in fact notable. A definitive codified standard would be nice, but it’s not necessary. The question in most cases is not whether high level ecclesiastic office is notable, but how high a level qualifies.
Keep I don't believe that Vojen is saying we should ignore GNG. Rather, I believe he is suggesting a different way to look at those that are being nominated for deletion, offering an invitation, if you like, for us to think this through thoroughly before we do something we might later regret. I for one think that Vojen has presented a well-reasoned argument with very valid points that need to be considered. I still believe we do articles an injustice when we nominate them for deletion before attempting to fix the issues that arise with them. I do believe that issues of concern can and should be addressed, but not by deletion discussions. Rather let us seek ways to improve the articles. This is not the place to discuss article issues. If anyone has anything they want to discuss in that regard, please post on the talk page. In the meantime, I would again encourage a respectful discourse and discussion about this very important issue of whether or not an article deserves to be kept. I think it can and should be given a chance to be made better. But I recognize I may be in the minority. This will likely be my only comment on this issue. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 00:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 06:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per very well reasoned arguments of Vojen. I could not have said it better myself, so I won't try. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:24, 23 July 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.