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[edit]

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]

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.
More