Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen (2nd nomination)

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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilford W. Andersen

AfDs for this article:
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)

Does not appear to meet WP:Notability (people). Previous AfD was closed as no consensus mainly because it was a mass nomination, and there were different opinions on different articles nominated, which muddied the water. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Vojen on another AfD discussion made a very good case for keeping articles about Second Quorum members. I understand (and even accept) what others have said about Second Quorum members having only temporary notability, but I feel that this could be compared somewhat to the notability of, say, a United States President. They serve for one or two terms and then they are out of the spotlight and no longer significant. But to those who follow US History, what former US Presidents do after leaving office is important. The same holds true for Second Quorum members. Their notability is temporary, but for those who follow Church history, what they do before and after holding office as a general authority is just as important as what they do while actively serving as a general authority. Their service as a general authority makes them prominent. I will let Vojen restate his argument if he chooses to do so. I still think that argument has relevancy in this case. If the consensus votes to delete this article, I will accept that consensus. However, for the moment, I want it clear that I am opposed to any attempt to delete any articles about any Second Quorum members. This will likely be my only comment on this issue, as I have been criticized for my comments on AfD issues in the past. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a long argument, but basically I think the ecclesiastical office itself is the foundation for notability. Religious leaders hold a position of honor similar to the notability of people standard for award recipients (see [[1]]), they hold offices of influence similar to politicians, and they serve as authorities in the academic discipline of theology and sit on boards which would qualify them as academics (see [[2]]). A default standard has arisen that we derive from these rules for notability on people that holds that high ranking clergy are found to be notable (see [[3]]). The question is how high an office qualifies as the basis for notatbility. I think membership in the Second quorum of the Seventy is high enough because these officials have global authority in their church (as opposed to purely local leaders) and their higher office makes their words subject to a much higher level of adoration and scrutiny than your average person. As previous discussions of members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy frequently got bogged down in whether independent sources could be found to provide verifiability, I went ahead and pulled some sources on this guy. The purpose of these sources is not to establish notability under the GNG (this guy is rarely the primary subject of the source), but rather to demonstrate the elevated status he holds in society because of his office.
Portuguese:
Spanish:
English:
I think the strongest argument for notability deriving from his office is the fact that this guy's words form the primary source materials for later homoletic pieces, teaching resources, and creative works. I also think Andersen's relationship to his church's presence in Cuba is interesting, though it's hard to derive all the details of his specific role from the sources as it appears to be mostly behind the scenes. Vojen (talk) 17:10, 4 August 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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilford_W._Andersen_(2nd_nomination)