Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma O. Taylor
- 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 merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan. Vanamonde (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alma O. Taylor (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)
Source searches for independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage have not been fruitful, with reliable source coverage limited to passing mentions and name checks. Sources in the article are not providing much, with [1] providing 4 sentences and [2] being a primary source with only mentions. This source in the article provides significant coverage, but it is published by Brigham Young University, which is entirely owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, some may consider this last source to be primary in nature, and primary sources are not usable to establish notability in English Wikipedia. North America1000 13:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. The "collections" source is definitely a secondary source, although it provides a link ("The Diary") to the text of the diary itself, which is a primary source. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- @DavidLeeLambert: A problem, though, is that more than one independent source (multiple sources) that provides significant coverage is needed, as per WP:BASIC, not just one. Also, why hasn't the subject received any significant attention from sources that are not affiliated with the LDS church? This reminds me of a situation in which a company reports upon its own personnel and then publishes it, which would be considered as a primary source. It also comes across as a potential WP:SPIP situation, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." North America1000 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm interested in the statement (paragraph 4 in the BYU "About" for the collection) "During the next several weeks many newspaper articles were printed, attacking the missionaries and Mormonism." Maybe someone could track some of those articles down? They would be secondary and independent, might not generally be reliable, might be reliable enough for the purpose of establishing notability of anyone in the missionary-party they named individually. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- The references to those newspapers are in Brady's 1983 BYU Studies article [3]. They are not significant coverage of this article's subject, being either interviews with Grant (mostly about polygamy) or sensational coverage of an incident in which the group was denied board because of a landlord's disapproval of polygamy. Bakazaka (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- @DavidLeeLambert: A problem, though, is that more than one independent source (multiple sources) that provides significant coverage is needed, as per WP:BASIC, not just one. Also, why hasn't the subject received any significant attention from sources that are not affiliated with the LDS church? This reminds me of a situation in which a company reports upon its own personnel and then publishes it, which would be considered as a primary source. It also comes across as a potential WP:SPIP situation, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." North America1000 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan, where subject's in-church notability is already discussed. Bakazaka (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep We have 3 sources. A 4th is provided. The blocking of BYU sources is just absurd. Taylor has no control over BYU especially decades after his death. This nomination if successful would amount to mass blocking of scholarly study on a subject because of the ownership of the university where it was conducted. This is a horrible precedent and needs to be avoided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Three of the four sources provided are clearly not independent per WP:IIS, leaving one. Whether or not that one is independent, it's not enough to meet WP:GNG. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan has better sourcing and places this non-notable (in Wikipedia terms) subject in the broader, notable context of LDS activities in Japan. That article is also more even-handed with its historical perspective, noting that the subject's main claim to notability, translating the Book of Mormon into Japanese, had to be redone by Chōkō Ikuta anyway. A merge or redirect makes sense in this situation. Bakazaka (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- An even broader statement is that every translation of the Book of Mormon into a language other than English, with the exception of Hawaiian and a few other langauges that are totally out of print, done before 1950 or maybe even a little latter, has been totally redone. So some languages have been totally redone multiple times. This has little relevance to Taylor's work, and more to do with broader decisions about the translation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- This article is not about other translations or languages. List of Book of Mormon translations would be a creative redirect target, but it would lose the even-handed historical context that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan provides. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- An even broader statement is that every translation of the Book of Mormon into a language other than English, with the exception of Hawaiian and a few other langauges that are totally out of print, done before 1950 or maybe even a little latter, has been totally redone. So some languages have been totally redone multiple times. This has little relevance to Taylor's work, and more to do with broader decisions about the translation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Three of the four sources provided are clearly not independent per WP:IIS, leaving one. Whether or not that one is independent, it's not enough to meet WP:GNG. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan has better sourcing and places this non-notable (in Wikipedia terms) subject in the broader, notable context of LDS activities in Japan. That article is also more even-handed with its historical perspective, noting that the subject's main claim to notability, translating the Book of Mormon into Japanese, had to be redone by Chōkō Ikuta anyway. A merge or redirect makes sense in this situation. Bakazaka (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Merge Agree with Bakazaka to merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan under History section. Deaddebate (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Sources don't attest to WP:GNG. I don't see any inherent notability of being the first person to translate the Book of Mormon into Japanese, especially as it was translated the same year by a native speaker, which was likely to be a far superior translation. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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.