Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace S. Eldredge

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 speedy keep. (Nomination withdrawn). Since the subject was a member of the Utah Territorial Legislature, he is presumed notable, per WP:POLITICIAN, which provides presumed notability (in part) for "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horace S. Eldredge

[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)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are only providing quotations from the subject, passing mentions and name checks, and many available sources are primary, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of sources out there for this person, many of them are encyclopedic in nature and so he easily passes WP:BASIC. Note that there is some variation in the way his name is rendered – his middle name was Sunderlin. Andrew D. (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson: Could you provide links to any of those sources so I and others can assess them? My extensive WP:BEFORE searches did not provide independent sources that provide significant coverage. Your WP:LOTSOFSOURCES rationale does not actually prove any notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be part of a deletion spree of articles about Mormons and the nomination has a cookie cutter style. Per WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to do source searches and explain why they are not satisfactory. My impression that the nominator is dismissing many substantial sources on the grounds that they are not independent. They should please detail and explain this rationale as I'm not buying it. Andrew D. (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson: All of my nominations regarding notability are WP:BEFORE-based, and I perform custom searches well beyond what WP:BEFORE suggests. So, again, could you please provide any links to the sources you find to be adequate, so they can be assessed? I searched extensively, and from what I found, the subject fails WP:BASIC. Also, my nomination is worded succinctly, but it is not a "cookie cutter" nomination whatsoever. The nomination is based upon research, which has not provided necessary coverage to qualify an article. For example, in the nomination I stated that my source searches are only providing quotations from the subject (which are primary sources), and passing mentions and name checks (these do not establish notability, because they do not provide significant coverage). Hopefully this describes my deletion rationale more clearly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator indicates that they have found lots of sources but considers them unsatisfactory. I also found lots of source and consider them satisfactory. The nominator now wants me to do work which they have not done themselves: listing the sources in question. Per WP:SAUCE and WP:CHOICE, the nominator should please do this work themself before making demands of others. Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have it backwards, per WP:ONUS, which states, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not buying it and my !vote stands. As there are hundreds of pages about Mormons, perhaps the nominator can help matters forward by explaining their general intentions. This particular page has been on Wikipedia for over 10 years and I suppose there are lots more like it. WP:BEFORE explains that "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag ..." Has any of this been done? How many Mormon articles is the nominator planning to send straight to AfD? What has occasioned this purge? Andrew D. (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Wikipedia is not about every person who walked the earth. Just so happens that there are many biographical articles about people that just don't meet notability standards, some ridiculously so. It's okay to nominate these for deletion; happens every day at AfD and via Prod. I could have prodded, but I felt that a full discussion would be more beneficial. Still waiting for those sources, and I don't mind being proven incorrect if sources usable to establish notability are provided, in which case I would then gladly withdraw. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to produce a list of sources until the nominator starts by producing the list of sources that he has reviewed. In the meantime, editors can start with the source linked in the article, which cites more sources, and then try the search links provided above, varying the keywords of the searches to include the full middle name "Sunderlin". Andrew D. (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the WP:ONUS is on you, not me: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That's how it works, not vice versa. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After you, Claude... Andrew D. (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you the last word. Oh, wait, this may be the last word. Anyway, regarding WP:ONUS, I'll buy that! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't some of these people of the Latter Day Saints be combined into one article? Govvy (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of the Utah Territorial Legislature he passes the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While [1] the Joseph Smith Paper's project listing someone does not inherently show they are notable, this publication of the Church Hisotrian's Press, a press that works to meet the general standards of academic respectability, is a reliable source for the information it provides on the people it lists. Thus, it is a reliable source for statements an individual was in a territorial legislature. Thus we have sufficient evidence to show that Eldredge is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 12 October 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.