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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia (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)

Per source searches, this work has received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, thus failing WP:BOOKCRIT. It exists, but no significant coverage about it appears to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP While maybe in itself not notable--may contain information about people who are notable and may be useful to someone researching Latter Day Saints and useful starting point for future historians. Auldhouse (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Would happily change my !vote if in depth coverage about this work can be found -- coverage not published by the church, of course -- but my search hasn't turned up anything but citations and library catalogs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Personally I have no time for the LDS. However, I would expect that we would treat such a dictionary as RS and possibly use inclusion as indicating notability. I thus think it will be useful to have the article. Since LDS is regarded as a cult by most Christians, their interaction with other denominations is limited, which probably explains the lack of 3rd party sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- Why note combine this page into Andrew Jenson's page, along with Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? The author's page could be expanded, and these books' pages alone are nearly stubs. Deaddebate (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as suggested by Deaddebate above, even if used as a WP:RS in other articles, and is "interesting", with no available references of its own a standalone is not warranted. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – As the nominator, I am fine with merging as per the above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd say the work probably falls under WP:OLDBOOK. It probably wouldn't hurt to have better crosslinking between the articles for the book and its author, and a clarifying crosslink to the article about CHC, but the page for the other book should definitely not be merged with this one... the authors may have interacted or even collaborated, but they were different people. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unless I am missing something, this appears to satisfy WP:OBK due to reprints (including microforms), which are an indicator of the level of circulation, the fact that it must have circulated widely because the local branches got a copy, the level of coverage and historical importance. Reprinted by eg SUP Memorial Foundation, 1955; Western Epics, 1971; Greg Kofford, 2005. Microforms by eg the one listed here. A search for "Saint Biographical Encyclopedia"+jenson+1901+microform does bring up some coverage in GBooks. This calls the book a standard work. (The publishers, UGA, say on their website they are not affiliated with the LDS church, even if that was an issue for a book not actually published by the church). James500 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. because of its apparent widespread use in the subject area. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, oops, forgot about Ye olde booke (coola now thinking of all the old books in their hoard collection that can be put on WP:)), a thankyou to the above editors, have changed from a "merge". Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 30 July 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.