- 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Killing of Laban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article recently created by disclosed paid editors from BYU. Despite the extensive references, most scholarship on the Book of Mormon is conducted by Mormons so whether WP:INDY sourcing requirement is met is unclear. For example, Catholicism and Judaism, among others, have produced vast bodies of scholarship on the details of their own religion, but only the clearly notable topics of Catholic canon law or Jewish exegetical literature are summarized here for the non-specialist reader.
While a proposed merge to First Nephi would also have been a reasonable course, I believe a full AfD is more likely to attract more independent comments and form a clearer community consensus. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Religion, and Latter Day Saints. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep So, there are some questionable sources. Irreantum is the publication for the Association for Mormon Letters, and it is not peer-reviewed. However, it is a literary journal, and it is used as a source just in the "Literary and artistic representations" section. That seems like an appropriate use of the source--for the existence of literature about the killing of Laban. Similarly, seeing The Ensign as a source gives me pause, but the text of the Wikipedia article attributes the author as an LDS apostle in-text. Full disclosure: My friend and expert in Book of Mormon studies created this page at my encouragement (so, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote in this discussion; if that's the case, consider this a comment). I would like to hear what other Wikipedians think! We need to develop more consensus about sources for LDS topics. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is part of a broader discussion within the LDS wikispace pertaining to sources, contributions by individual editors, etc. As it stands, the article appears to have the following sources:
- #1 through #7 - referencing the BOM directly. These are WP:PRIMARY references.
- #8 - summary of the topic in a section of a scholarly book, no connection to the topic.
- #9 - peer-reviewed article on the topic from an academic journal published by University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at BYU. Part of the broader sourcing discussion.
- #10 - article on the subject from an independent journal in the space. No other concerns.
- #11 -article that references the subject as a part of broader claims. No other concerns.
- #12 - book referencing the subject as a part of broader claims. No other concerns.
- #13 - book of mormon textbook published by the LDS Church. This is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source.
- #14 - church magazine article published by the LDS Church. Similarly not independent.
- #15 - book published by the Maxwell Institute. Part of the broader discussion.
- #16 - church magazine article, see #14
- #17 - same publication as #9
- #18 through #22 - references to the subject published in the Irreantum newsletter published by the Association of Mormon Letters. Part of the broader discussion, exact status still in debate.
- #23 - BYU address given by LDS apostle. Not independent.
- #24 - article referring to the subject from an independent journal. No other concerns.
In summary, this article has references that fall into three categories - primary sources and those closely associated with the LDS church, references that have some connection with the LDS community and are part of a broader discussion in regards to their position on Wikipedia, and independent sources that have no connection to the LDS church outside of this topic. In my view, there is a lot of work to be done to make sure that references and articles are used and written in a WP:NPOV and independent manner. However, references such as #10, 11, 12, and #24 are indicative of this part of the Book of Mormon being a scholarly important part of the broader narrative. These are examples of various authors using the Book of Mormon narrative as a primary source to help draw conclusions related to their various secondary conclusions, allowing Wikipedia to draw tertiary summaries from these articles. Could this article use additional rewrite? Absolutely. But it does not need to be deleted, at least as far as these sources are concerned. Rollidan (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept, it should be subject to heavy cleanup tags and extensive trimming. Lots of issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY, and by extension, WP:NPOV. On the other hand, the idea of the Killing of Laban providing justification for later Blood Atonement is interesting, could counterbalance the prevailing pro-LDS POV, and could provide justification for the notability of the article as a whole. Those thoughts should remain and perhaps even be expanded if possible. Trevdna (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge, as Trevdna notes the stuff about Blood Atonement is interesting and should probably be expanded upon if possible... However I think that should happen at Blood Atonement not here, other parts could go other places. I don't think that we have enough significant coverage of the topic in independent RS... Rollidan does a decent job addressing independence, but they stop there and don't examine whether or not the coverage is significant. I'm just not seeing it/ Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just a note, "Delete/Merge" makes no sense. An editor can't merge a deleted article. So, instead say "Merge/Delete" if that's the point you want to make.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to First Nephi - also make sure that the sources that are retained into the target article are, wherever possible, not sourced back to the LDS church's in-house publications to establish the notability of this religious story. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Liz: Delete/merge means that I support either deleting or merging the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Horse Eye's Back, seriously? I didn't pick that up that there is a missing "or". I took it as sequential, like Delete, then Merge. Well, now I know, thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, one of those things where if we were talking IRL the cues would have have been tonal but written it is ambiguous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge to either of the suggested targets. This article is in bad need of wp:tnt and seemingly no critical sources could be found. It reads like a Sunday school lesson, not a generally notable topic. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rollidan. This is one of the more troublesome passages in the Book of Mormon and is notable for how it has influenced and challenged Mormon thought. ~Awilley (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2024 (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.