Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted E. Brewerton

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ted E. Brewerton

Ted E. Brewerton (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)

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Available sources are either primary or are only providing short routine quotes from the subject and passing mentions. North America1000 08:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject of the article, Ted E. Brewerton, was a general authority seventy for quite a few years. As a high-ranking official in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he held a wide variety of positions within the Church and is notable for that reason. Some may try to say that, because the only sources cited in the article are LDS publications that there are notability issues, but this is no different than information about a member of a Catholic diocese coming primarily from resources related to Catholicism. For those and other reasons, I strongly oppose the motion to delete this article. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:HEY I searched and added some sources to the page, but I'm just not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV. User:Jgstokes, if you or anyone else can find some INDEPTH, stuff from which to source a BIO, even from Deseret, feel free to ping me to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Changing to keep, see belowE.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a decent article, with sources, about a fairly significant person in the mormon hierarchy, is/was a member of the "first 70", is linked from Seventy (LDS Church) which lists many others. I don't think it is helpful to go picking through the "70"-type mormon listings in order to accomplish marginal paring down. I noticed this AFD because I edited the article a while back, perhaps after noticing a CFD about a category of stake presidents that covered the item. Sure it could be a more exciting article but it is solid enough, and there's nothing controversial / no reason to achieve marginal paring. --doncram 23:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to E.M.Gregory: Regarding the significant coverage issue, Brewerton was one who was listed among the general authorities for years until he was granted emeritus status around his birthday. The sources verifying his status as a high-level leader in the LDS church can easily be found here and here. In these simple initial searches, I found enough information on Brewerton to rationalize keeping the article, both sources highlighting his importance as a leader in the LDS Church, and sources which highlight his achievements outside of that full-time service. I currently do not have time to go into specifics in terms of every source that prove the article in question should be allowed to stay, but I will say that there have been quite a few AfD nominations for LDS Church leaders in the last little while, and there ought to be some way to prove conclusively that the individual articles about such leaders are worthy of keeping. If that can be done, then there will not be so many individual nominations. But the fact is that Brewerton was an active part of the LDS leadership during pivotal periods, and his work as a general authority should establish solidly the importance of a biographical article here on Wikipedia about him. Just wanted to add that. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidentiary support: Here are the results on Brewerton I found as a result of running a simple search on the Deseret News website. Note that many of the sources originally appeared in the Church News, which was separate and distinct from the Deseret News until recently, when the two merged. Between the three search results, I hope I have proven relevancy. If more is needed, please let me know. I also look forward to what everyone else has to say on this as well, whether for or against this deletion. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::*User:Jgstokes, Can you flag the Deseret articles that contain INDEPTH coverage of his career? Also, just fyi, because Deseret, which not controlled by LDS, does have a corporate connection with the Church, it is usually necessary to find totally independent sources. The best way to argue for keeping thei or an article is to find and bring WP:RS to the page. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to E.M.Gregory: Therein lies the problem. The main issue people seem to have with LDS Church leaders is the lack of reliable sources outside of those owned, controlled, or operated by the LDS Church. But it is precisely these same sources put out by the LDS Church that establish notability, because of the service of such individuals in Church-related capacities. I appreciate the request to try and establish notability with reliable sources unrelated to the Church, but it's a catch-22 situation. This man is notable for having served in a general capacity as one who ministered worldwide because he had the assignment (including the calling and authority) to do so. Efforts have previously been requested to either establish notability outside of Church sources, or to establish a new set of criteria that would specifically relate to leaders in the LDS Church, but nothing ever happens in that regard. That said, I am happy to do my best to try and gather sources separate from the LDS Church, but it will take several days. And my worry is that this AfD will be closed, with a potential to have the article deleted, before I have a chance to get that together. Is there any way we can suspend a decision on this, pending what I can find in my research within the next few days? I may be able to get something together by Monday or Tuesday next week, or it may take longer. In the meantime, I would welcome thoughts from anyone about if, when and how to establish notability specifically for LDS leaders, and particularly the Seventy. The Seventy does have a significant leadership role, but many articles about other Seventies have been deleted simply because there was no way to establish notability for such individuals outside of their service in the LDS Church and to the members thereof. Thanks again for reaching out to me on this. This is the first AfD discussion for an article of an LDS seventy in which I have been invited to try and establish notability with sources other than those from the LDS Church, and I appreciate that more than I can say. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Disucssions run seven days.[reply]
But it is precisely these same sources put out by the LDS Church that establish notability Completely disagree with this. Someone or something is not notable on Wikipedia just because its parent organization has the resources to publish a lot of material about it. Notability is about significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note closing editor As a courtesy, please allow this discussion to run an extra seven days if that time is needed by Jgstokes to search for sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above, courtesy ping Jgstokes. I also note no discussion in 5 days, however.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate the consideration shown to me regarding this discussion, particularly in granting me additional time to find sources that would qualify the subject of the article under the sufficient coverage guidelines. That said, because of health-related challenges since my last comment, I have not yet been able to do that research. I apologize for that. But I have requested comment on notability guidelines for General Authority Seventies on the Wikipedia page regarding significant coverage. I apologize for my not having been able to do the necessary research. I will watch this AfD discussion for additional comments on this issue, and will try to do the necessary research this weekend. Just wanted to pass all that along. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Request for comment: After receiving kindly additional direction on this matter, I have discovered that the relevant place to discuss general notability standards for LDS general authority seventies is here, where I have requested comment from the community. For those involved in this discussion that would like to participate in that one, I would appreciate it. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep There are broad sources, from multiple countries, that show widespread coverage. Considering we give all Catholic bishops default notability, it is high time that people accept that we should give the same default notability to LDS general authority seventies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just found evidence that Brewerton was the chair of the committee that created the LDS Spanish Edition of the Bible. With use by millions of people, this is at least an add towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This year, as in the last month or so, a book entitled "Canadian Mormons was just published. It may have things to say on Brewerton.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Persuaded by User:Johnpacklambert sources. I added a citation to a book supporting Brewerton's participation in creating a LDS Spanish translation of the Bible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book to which I sourced Brewerton's involvement with the LDS translation of the Bible into Spanish was published by Cedar Fort, Inc., a privately owned, for-profit publishng house that specialized in LDS books. I do believe that there are sufficient independent sources now in the article to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. I didn't ask about that part. You said "Persuaded by User:Johnpacklambert's sources". Was a mistake? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He made this specific assertion of fact. So I searched, and found an independent source for it. I had personally added several independent sources to the article earlier, and I believe that , cumulatively, they suffice to pass WP:GNG. Not ot mention that even though Deseret is somewhat borderline in therms of independence (editorially but not financially independent), it is a reliable source on fact, even for articles about Mormons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Came to this via the threads on various notability-related pages arguing that LDS general authorities should be automatically notable. When an organization writes about itself -- whether a company, church, government, etc. -- that itself does not make for notability. I don't know whether Catholic Bishops should generally be considered notable (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFF), but if so, it's because of coverage in sources other than those released by the church. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never seen a Catholic Bishop deleted; when they come up, they tend to be kept SPEEDY; even the completely unsourced modern ones; ditto for the major Anglican, Lutheran and Eastern Churches (suffragans need more obscure churches independent sourcing). See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, but trust me on this, I so bishops regularly. that is why I think we should work out some sort of consensus on what level of LDS 70 to place in a category with the bishops of major denominations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I haven't looked at enough of those AfDs to know the results. Since they're typically kept, I can only presume that's because they receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Regardless, this is WP:OTHERSTUFF. We need in-depth coverage of this person in reliable sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:26, 5 November 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted_E._Brewerton&oldid=1138823573"