Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per G. Malm

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.

However, both sides referred to the deletion debate on Carlos H. Amado. I therefore think it reasonable, as the closer, to examine the arguments put forward in that debate also. Two sources with small, but significant, articles on Amado were presented. They were in The A to Z of Mormonism and Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History. I note that Malm also has an entry in the latter (I cannot establish if he is in the former because google preview will not go as far as the M section). Neither of these sources were challenged for either reliability or notability despite the debate remaining open for some time after they were raised. I can only conclude that participants found them acceptable sources. For that reason, I am calling this no consensus with no prejudice against a speedy renomination if participants wish to challenge those sources. SpinningSpark 20:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per G. Malm

Per G. Malm (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)

BLP with only references ripped from non-independent website. Similar general authorities to this have been deleted. GNG the primary relevant policy here, as there is no policy or guideline granting notability to LDS authorities

• Keep Per recent decision on Carlos H. Amado and the various reason spelled out in that discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were no reasons, just you and some other guys ignoring GNG and then getting lucky with a sympathetic closer. Compare

p 01:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 02:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 02:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Vojen's excellent argument on previous articles. I have read all the relevant policies and am still of the belief that Vojen's argument is a sound one. I believe we make a mistake when articles are nominated for deletion without first making an attempt to resolve issues that exist in order to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. But I have learned through sad experience that whatever I say, I will be ridiculed and bawled out for it. So I would merely say that I would like us to give this article a chance at life before we go nominating it for deletion. And that being said, I urge civility in our discussion. This will likely be my one and only comment on the issue. I will, however, be following this page to see what the outcome is. Whatever happens, I can be content that I have spoken out in defense of this article. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't let the nominator here get you down. He is a hateful person who believes that he should be able to ban people from participating in Wikipedia that he does not agree with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true.
      p 14:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete What is it with this walled garden of articles? There is nothing in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines that states a particular occupation is automatically notable or exempt from notability requirements. No independents sources are present and I couldn't find any in
  HighBeam. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree. I've been gradually nominating these for deletion, but reliably, JPL and Stokes vote "keep" despite sources other than LDS websites (not reliable in this case) existing

p 19:39, 14 November 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, j⚛e decker^talk 01:35, 15 November 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 20:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I see this as being a real dilemma: the Mormon church is a world unto itself, and information about important church members will only be reported in church literature. They do not appear to encourage non-Mormon sources from carrying their news stories, and because the church manages its own affairs, the only time it comes to the attention of non-Mormon society is if there is a crime or scandal. Our choices seem to be only 2: 1) accept the Mormon definitions of notability of their persons and events or 2) reject all articles that can only be sourced to Mormon publications and media. I personally think a case-by-case basis is the only way to go. In this case, the sources are weak, but I can find others with a search. My advice is to leave it with a notice that too much of the article is unsourced, and see if it can be improved. LaMona (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the Church has a very active "Mormon Newsroom" site that tries very hard to generate as much outside coverage as it can. I know in the Funk case, there were several not controled by the Mormon Church sources that published bios of Funk. The thing was they were all verbatim repeats of his biography as published by Mormon newsroom, and so dismissed as PR. The fact of the matter is, we need to bear in mind all coverage of a person, place or thing has some level of establishing they are notable. Not all is equal, but a person who has a PR article on them published in 100 papers is clearly more notable than a person who has such an article published in just one paper. Whether either is notable is another issue, but they are not the same. I also have to not that
    Steven R. Covey are 3 of hundreds of Mormons who have received notice in the wider society with no relation to scandal. Even if we speak of the Church as an institution, it comes to notice because of things besides scandal and crime. The very nature of LDS Temples are that when a new one is built it recieves lots of local coverage, and generally regional coverage from major papers in that part of the US. Whether the same plays out in other countries, I am not familar enough with sources to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • LaMona, can you please list the other sources you've found? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here they are, although I cannot attest to their significance, since this is outside my area of expertise. Perhaps someone more versed in the Mormon community can comment. [1] [2] [3]. I can also find a small number of blog posts. The searches that seem to work are "peter g malm lds" and "peter g malm elder". LaMona (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to
  List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Fails GNG/BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 27 November 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.