Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Bulgaria

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

clusterfuck. Quoting myself from the last one: This catastrophically huge nomination is so big that XfDcloser is having a seizure whilst trying to close it. No prejudice against speedy renomination individually or in smaller batches. As the removal of the AfD templates can't be done automatically by XfDcloser, I will ask the nominator to do it - no one else should have to spend their time cleaning up this mess. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Bulgaria

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a single

independent source with significant coverage. Article is entirely made up of content from sources directly affiliated with or owned by the LDS Church. ––FormalDude talk 05:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]
I am also nominating the following nearly 100 related articles for the same reason:

I found this page very helpful during my visit to Genova, italy! 93.49.118.229 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

)

)

Over 80 of them were created by the same editor. I recognize that it is very possible for some similar topics such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ireland to be considered notable because they have significant coverage in independent sources. These articles I've listed are not that; they were all hastily created and do not meet notability guidelines. As they stand they are essentially religious promotion. ––FormalDude talk 06:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Bulgaria. ––FormalDude talk 05:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a lot of the articles about the LDS in other countries is provided by LDS sources. I promise I'm not being a jerk when I say this but If we get rid of this article are we also going to get rid of the others that look similar? Because there are a lot that look like this one. (Austria Belgium Croatia Caucasus Hong Kong Turkey United Kingdom) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is it really that surprising that the people interested enough in the history of a particular religion to write books, articles, and newspaper stories about it are its members?--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude Honest question, do we want to do these as one large batch (is that allowed?) or do we want to do them one article at a time? Sorry if this sounds stupid I'm still kind of new to NPP. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that they are all pretty much the same–a start class article with a few paragraphs or less from sources directly from the LDS Church, I think it is more than okay to have a

MULTIAFD. ––FormalDude talk 06:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@FormalDude would you be opposed to adding these pages as well?

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those do all also appear to suffer the same exact issues–except for Czech Republic, South Korea, Bahrain, Thailand, the Isle of Man, and Wales. Those ones have significant independent sources. I'll add the rest that don't though. ––FormalDude talk 08:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opss yeah a couple of those had an independent source. I think you should check the Czech Republic, Bahrain, and South Korea again. Sources from Ensign are LDS https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1985/05/news-of-the-church/tabernacle-choir-to-tour-japan?lang=eng and Cumoarah.com is a little harder to pin down it bills itself as an "International Resources for Latter-day Saints". Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain has two

Salt Lake Tribune article. South Korea has multiple book references. Czech Republic is the only one that's somewhat borderline. ––FormalDude talk 09:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep the Finnish article in specific, Procedurally oppose the mass-AfD in general. This review article, and these research articles [1] [2] [3] [4] demonstrate that significant independent scholarly coverage is available at least for the LDS church in Finland. In general, nominating a hundred+ articles in a single AfD is not reasonable, as nobody is going to be able to make any kind of an
WP:BEFORE for more than one or two. I suggest slowly listing these in smaller chunks of perhaps 5 or so over time. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the articles on the Cook Islands and French Polynesia specifically. These seem like they cover the ground, and French Polynesia is C-class. Procedurally opposed to the mass-AfD - articles should be considered on their individual merits.--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand. The Troughton ref was independent - are you sure it did not have significant coverage? Anyway, I have added a little more info to the article with two additional independent sources. Article was already C-class. It needs more work, but deletion not justified. Nurg (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; most of these articles are not individually marked for deletion, not giving a real chance to their editors to respond. The articles listed here are of varied lengths, detail, and referencing. Lumping them all together makes for an unwieldy and not thoughtful discussion. Performing a brief review of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Korea I see a lengthy article, with multiple sources and plenty of referencing. A discussion might be had if the books used as references are not allowable, but that is a detailed discussion to be had for that article specifically. Al83tito (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Korea in my nomination and I explained why. The articles listed here are all of the same length, detail, and referencing; start class articles that do nothing but regurgitate content directly from the LDS Church. ––FormalDude talk 00:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also all these articles have been tagged with the an AfD notice and all of the authors have been notified. ––FormalDude talk 00:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I lack time to comment this time as I have in past disputes, so this maybe my only comment for this dispute. This is not the first time this has come up for discussion on these articles, with the most recent occurrence being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Maine, which was conducted a little over a year ago with the result of Keep. Now this and similar pages are being renominated for deletion in mass. If reasons now are different, please state why. Again, I've got a busy schedule outside of Wikipedia right now, and will not be able to contribute to this discussion this week like I did in the past. Thanks, --Dmm1169 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all on procedural grounds. These should be vetted one by one. This will allow the nominator to conduct a serious
WP:BEFORE search (D.) as well as for participants interested in certain countries to show up with arguments about sources. It is certainly not inconceivable that for a very large percentage of these articles the sources actually cited are not the only sources that exist out there; both scholars and journalists habitually cover religious minority communities. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There are several of these pages that I and my students have worked on that should (now) fulfill notability criteria. I agree that many of these types of pages do not pass notability criteria in their present state, but a page like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia has multiple independent sources, as well as many church ones. I personally added a lot of information to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Africa, and another one of of my students worked on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ghana. The current list is not just "start class articles that do nothing but regurgitate content directly from the LDS Church" (but I agree that many of them are). I have long-term plans for my team to work on all of the country + LDS church articles, but it will take us a while to get to them all. I agree with the idea of discussing articles individually. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: I was going to snow close this nomination, but it appears that, due to the sheer number of articles nominated here (over 100), XfDCloser is breaking. The closing administrator will probably have to make several-hundred edits in order to close this correctly. FormalDude, in the future could you please clump less articles in the same nomination? 20 is a lot; 100 is un-workable. --VersaceSpace 🌃 15:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It will require extensive work to go through this articles and look for secondary sources. This is way too many to do at once and even if we could the discussion will be hard to follow with so many articles.--Jahaza (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many of these articles cite either Deseret News or other journals owned by the LDS. While perhaps it would be better to find less overtly Church-affiliated sources, does that reasonably entail their deletion? To my knowledge, none of them have been listed as deprecated. Further, as noted above, it's not unheard of for sources about a religion to be written by people affiliated with that religion. IMO, delete only those articles whose only sources are directly from the LDS Church. I.E., if it only cites the LDS website or something more directly connected. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Botswana is a good example of an article that only has citations directly published by the LDS. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[D]elete only those articles whose only sources are directly from the LDS Church would go directly against the notability guidelines, because
notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Just because an article currently has bad sourcing does not mean that sourcing doesn't exist. That's why any mass nominations like this is so massively problematic. Ljleppan (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and hold seperate Afd's on each. So far, I was able to add some sources on the Philippines article in this AfD and I think the other articles might be worked on if they are discussed seperately. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources such as Deseret News are acceptable for
WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I think this AFD is going to need to be closed manually as XFDCloser is not loading correctly despite my efforts to adjust the templates at the top. I do not recommend nominating over 100 pages in one AFD, there are many reasons why this is a terrible idea but the amount of work the closer must do to handle each article is a big one. I think this discussion will extend over a week until someone has the time and inclination to handle it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 17 July 2022 (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.