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. NA1000's analysis of the sources is very clearly useful here. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilford W. Andersen (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)

Subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Per source searches, I found this article, which provides significant coverage, is independent and reliable, but not finding anything else in terms of said necessary coverage. Searches are only providing name checks and fleeting passing mentions. Furthermore, all nine sources in the article are primary sources, which are not usable to qualify notability, and no Wikipedia guidelines provide presumed notability for religious subjects. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the 1st AfD was a mass nomination that closed sans consensus. The 2nd nomination (2014) was a unanimous "Keep". And also Note that while sources on the page are not independent, they there are reliable (correction: there are reliable sources extant, (LDS church holds an ownership interest in Deseret News.) But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and independent sources do exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – @E.M.Gregory: The sources when nominated for deletion (link) are from Church News, which is "a weekly tabloid-sized supplement to the Deseret News and the MormonTimes, a Salt Lake City, Utah newspaper owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)" (underline emphasis mine). This is a primary source that is wholly owned by the LDS Church, and is not independent. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret is editorially independent, and it's a complex ownership structure. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but the point is that sources exist to establish notability, even though the article was woefully sourced when you found it. Maybe we need some edit-a-thons in the mountain states, and in "red" territory (like church multipurpose rooms), not just in "blue" spaces.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding your reply above, "Deseret is editorially independent, and it's a complex ownership structure", I'm not sure I follow you entirely. The sources in the article at the time of nomination were written and published by Church News, not Deseret News. Church News is not editorially independent, it's literally owned by the church. See also the publication's "About us" page, which states, "The LDS Church News is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Jointly published by the Deseret News and the LDS Church, its content supports the doctrines, principles and practices of the Church." Deseret News uses Church News as a supplement, but Deseret News does not actually or literally write it, it essentially only distributes it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that there is INDEPTH in Deseret News (not independent, but reliable on facts), which uses his middle initial. Much more coverage in Arizona papers form the 90s and early 2000s, available in news archive searches without middle initial. Accusations of racism within LDS in Arizona was an issue that got wide coverage, and he was LDS spokesman, then he was the LDS leader who was speaking to the press. There really does seem to have been justification for KEEPing this at the 2004 AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Per my comment above, are you mistakenly referring to Church News, a primary source wholly owned by the LDS Church, as Deseret News? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I ran an Proquest News archive search. Using his middle initial, ~40 Deseret articles came up, spanning many years, some INDEPTH, others mere mentions. My point is that Deseret News is a reliable source from which an article about a LDS leader can be sourced, even though there needs to be WP:SIGCOV in in independent WP:RS to support notability. Such coverage does exist. To me, this looks like our familiar type: an article about a notable person that needs an editor with the time and interest to properly expand and source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @E.M.Gregory: Perhaps you could post some of the article titles you found in ProQuest, then I and others could have a means of searching for them by title and publisher to assess them. Links would be fine too, although they won't work for non-ProQuest users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are the first ones that come up in a PROQUEST , excluding new Temple cornerstone layings,

• MORMONS DISPUTE FAVORITISM IN GILBERT, Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]14 Apr 2000: A.1. photo of Andersen.
• Church pushes for name change `Mormon' was once an insult; today, it just doesn't convey the church's beliefs: [Fourth Edition]. Ettenborough, Kelly. Seattle Times; Seattle, Wash. [Seattle, Wash]24 Mar 2001: C8.
• CITY COMMITTEE TAKING YEAR TO LOOK 25 YEARS DOWN ROAD, Beard, Betty. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]26 Sep 2000: 1. (member of a civic committee; non church-related civic participation)
• TEACHERS REJECT BOARD'S SALARY OFFER: [Final Edition] From GAZETTE staff; wire reports.. Phoenix Gazette; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]20 Apr 1994: B2. (he wasa Chair of the school board)
• Same-sex ban under protest during Mormon festivities, Greene, Katherine. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]29 Nov 2008: B.2. "The biggest donors to the Yes 4 Marriage campaign in Arizona, before the primaries, were Nancy and David LeSueur and Kathleen and Wilford Andersen, two prominent Mormon families in Mesa."
• Faith groups backing Prop. 102; Pitzl, Mary Jo. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]03 Oct 2008: B.1. "Wilford Andersen, a former church spokesman, contributed $100,000 along with his wife. He did not return a phone call seeking comment."
• A MATTER OF FAITH EXCLUSION OF MORMONS FROM EVENT ILL-CONCEIVED; Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]01 Feb 2000: 4. (a major Christian ecumenical "Festival of Faite" to which Mormons were not invited.) "In his understated style, Wilford Andersen, chief spokesman for the Mormon church in Arizona, sounded a sympathetic chord:'They kind of have to walk a fine line in the Ecumenical Council so they don't lose the evangelical groups that take such hard positions against us.'"
• Inside a sacred house; Ferrier, Pat. Fort Collins Coloradoan; Fort Collins, Colo. [Fort Collins, Colo]24 Aug 2016: W.1. "Elder Wilford Andersen, who oversees 153 temples worldwide, said..."
• Keep Gregory has clearly demonstrated enough sourcing to show notability. Beyond this, I have to express frustration at the misuse of terms in these deltion discussions. The Church News is not a primary source. Published works that are not created by the subject are never primary sources. Weather they meet the 3rd party reliable secondary source requriements is debatable, but they are not primary sources. Way more than enough sources have been identified above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The quotations for the sources above are passing mentions (e.g. "Wilford Andersen, a former church spokesman, contributed $100,000 along with his wife. He did not return a phone call seeking comment."), which is not WP:SIGCOV, or quotations (e.g. "Elder Wilford Andersen, who oversees 153 temples worldwide, said..."), which are primary in nature, unless more content about the subject is actually available in them. Church News remains a primary source; it is literally owned by the LDS church. See also: WP:SPIP, where it states in part:

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per coverage of his activities over many years, there is, unsurprisingly, much more than the articles I listed above as examples. to take just one, The Arizona Republic, the newspaper of record in one of America's larger states, reported his role in opposing gay marriage. Two separate sotries mention his large donation. The fact that he and his wife gave $100,000 to the "anti" campaign in WP:SIGCOV, even if it is brief, and even if he was smart enough not to comment. I do not support keeping most of the many articles Northamerica1000 has recently brought to AfD on individuals who have held prominent positions within LDS. I run searches and support keeping only those whose activities have gotten WP:SIGCOV. Like this one. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but the two-sentence mention ""Wilford Andersen, a former church spokesman, contributed $100,000 along with his wife. He did not return a phone call seeking comment." is just not significant coverage whatsoever. See WP:GNG, where it is stated that significant coverage is defined (in part) as "more than a trivial mention". This example coverage is the definition of a trivial mention. Ironically, part of this coverage consists of the person not saying or doing anything; not returning a phone call! Really? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below is an analysis of sources presented in this discussion, based upon how they have been described above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – If we are going to start considering the faintest of mentions in multiple (at least two) reliable sources as significant coverage (it's not), then below is an example of what would qualify notability for an article on English Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person An image of a person[1] This person donated money to a cause.[2] He did not return a phone call seeking comment.[2] Notes ^ Reference #1 – A single image of a person in a publication ^ a b Reference #2 – Passing mention

• Delete The sources in the article are either not independent (Church News) or not significant coverage. The additional coverage presented above is trivial and routine, and trivial mentions and quotes do not add up to significant coverage, even if a sufficiently dedicated editor can turn them into sentences. Still no significant coverage of the article's subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources, so subject does not pass WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am in agreement with User:Northamerica1000, I fail to see any truly independent sources nor do I feel this article passes under current WP:GNG guidelines. Wilford W. Andersen hasn't done anything standout that leads me to believe he even deserves to be have a wikipedia article. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:BASIC per the excellent analysis of the sources by NA1000. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2018 (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.