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 delete. None of the keep votes make a compelling argument that the subject meets WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 04:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Whitmer Historical Association[edit]

John Whitmer Historical Association (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)

This is a relatively small organization of about 400 members, confined mostly to " the Midwestern United States and the Mormon cultural zone in the Western US". They publish some books, a newsletter, and an academic journal. However, according to WorldCat, none of these publications is held in more than a handful of libraries, nor is the journal indexed in any selective database. Google Scholar shows only very low citations rates for articles published in this journal (despite t having been around for over 30 years). The article mostly consists of lists of people that have received some awards (all of them rather minor, as far as I can see, with award amounts of $1000 maximum and going down to $250), lists of people that have given lectures at events organized by them (judging from the photo provided, only attended by a few dozen people), lists of meetings, lists of publications, etc. All of this is sourced to the society website and publications, there is not a single independent reference. Some of these people appear to be notable (given that they have articles on them), but, of course, notability is not inherited. I failed to find anything beyond some blog posts in a Google search. Unless somebody else is able to find independent reliable sources, this fails to meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete sorely lacking third party sources. The article is based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - for what it's worth, here is a (reliable?) independent source. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's published by a respectable university press, so I guess it's an RS. Whether this is enough coverage to show notability, I am less sure. Whether it is to be regarded as independent is also questionable, given that the author, Jan Shipps is a past-president of the society. --Randykitty (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article has been around since 2004 and has a fairly large "what links here" collection. With so many what links here it would be relatively easy to find third party sources.Americasroof (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please actually give examples of sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES . LibStar (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested sources - Lipstar - Just doing googles on the first three names in the opening paragraph comes up with this and this and [1].Americasroof (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLEHITS. We need actual reliable sources see WP:RS. LibStar (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thank you for those Google searches. Would you care to tell us which one of those hits actually constitutes an independent reliable source discussing this group in depth showing notability? --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background - - I come to this because of it was listed in Missouri list of deletions. This historical society is probably the definitive source for historical writing about the LDS (Mormon) sect that believes that the LDS church should be headquartered in Independence, Missouri at Temple Lot as LDS founder Joseph Smith proclaimed rather than in Salt Lake City (which was decided by others after Smith's death). This group is relatively small but it still has a strong historical pedigree including Smith's son Joseph Smith III being the Community of Christ first leader after the split from the Salt Lake City sect. This particular historical society is based in the church's college at Lamoni, Iowa (founded at a time before the group made a move to return to Independence). Even though this group is small, it has strong legitimacy of importance.Americasroof (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations to the nominator for bringing this interesting test case here. Although I am inclined to a weak keep the result will probably be weak either way as this scholarly organization is not a major one. The length of the article is too long for the importance of the organization, perhaps stubbify? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Keep -- I too agree that this is a good test case and thank Randykitty for bringing it up. I disagree that the Google Scholar counts are relevant because GS citation counts are not reliable indicators of notability (particularly along the borderline) for the humanities (this has come up many times) and are especially low for journals that don't appear online (for free or pay), and retrospective citation counting for pre-2000 issues has barely begun in the humanities. The lack of indexing of the journal in selective databases and the low WorldCat holdings are of more concern for me, though the independent notability of the journal is not the main discussion here, so 27 library holdings for their journal isn't so low as to vote delete in itself. Nor is the size of the prizes a concern -- many humanistic societies give tiny cash awards with the prestige of the prize being the actual award (PEN Poetry award is something like $500; the American Musicological Society's top award comes with $500 or $1000 only, but is worth tenure in itself). These are responses to delete opinions which cause me to reject it, but I haven't given a particularly good reason to keep yet, and I can only give a Weak Keep rationale: 40+ years of existence, 34 years of annual meetings, and frequent president rotation meets the desiderata of an established organization, so definite keep there. Size: low in relation to major organizations but of a size that seems large for the small subfield they research on (which would definitely be accepted as a respected discipline) so I'd say Weak Keep there. Influence and RS demonstrating it: not absent but just below a notability level; I'd say weak delete there. So I go with the tie-breakers which aren't in any printed WP guideline (which don't evaluate the article itself) but I think is important: is the article blatantly promotional in its current form and does its inclusion improve or hurt the encyclopedia? I'd answer "no" to the former and "improve" to the latter. The article could be trimmed (though the list of speakers and presidents does help the notability), but I would not "stubify", but remove the lists and tables. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- What the above posters mean by their use of the term "test case" is this discussion about developing a possible SNG for academic organizations. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here.[2] Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep -- An academic society specialising in the study of a denomination is certainly worth having, even if it is small. Possibly however, we should in principle have one article covering the society and its journal. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One further argument in favor of deletion: not only is the society small, it is not even national in scope (let alone international), as their membership is "split roughly equally between the Midwestern United States and the Mormon cultural zone in the Western US." --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this scope would be too small for just about any organization except when the regions that it encompasses represents where the vast majority of the research on a topic is happening, which may be the case on Mormon history (Missouri and Utah primarily), so while if the article is kept it should not set a precedent that organizations with this small a scope should be kept, it doesn't argue for deletion in this case for me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty₈₄₅ 20:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment from relisting Admin In the absence of an established SNG that covers this subject, it would be helpful to focus more of the discussion on whether sufficient reliable sources exist to meet the General Notability Guideline, if it can pass WP:GNG, that is all that will mater in this case. If it doesn't pass GNG, arguments in favor of keeping it still need to be considered, and it could be a test case, but we need to figure out consensus on GNG first, and note that trying to keep the article if it does fail GNG wont be easy. Monty₈₄₅ 20:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Frankly, I don't think there is much doubt that this fails GNG (and indeed nobody has argued yet that it does), but if that were all that counts, we wouldn't need an SNG... --Randykitty (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Randykitty, even though we disagree on this AfD -- part of the question of discussion is to what extent do scholarly societies fall under the WP:PROF guidelines (there are few criteria there that apply, but the general principle that these are people are organizations that have notability through their publications, etc. beyond what tends to be written directly about). This article is a test case for the types of sources that are RS for scholarly organizations and how much coverage is necessary in those sources to be notable. Maybe everything would've been easier if we had started with organizations that clearly fail or pass before working on such a hard case, but it's what RK found and the discussion that has emerged has been fascinating to me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I fail to recognize reliable sources which establish the notability of the article's subject. Also, almost the entirety of this article is without citation and inappropriate for inclusion anyway. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to a short section in John Whitmer. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this section and added it to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think there is much hope that out of this debate will emerge a procedural algorithm that will allow a reasonable decision to be made by editors who are not familiar with the world of scholarship (say, an editor who specializes in sports articles). Perhaps special allowance may have to be made for enterprises that are in the same business as Wikipedia - the accumulation of knowledge- and WP:IAR. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• I still say Keep -- Despite its name this is not a society celebrating John Whitmer, but a small academic society researching a narrow specialised subject. I suspect that it is the only society devoted to its subject, Mormon History, and thus not merely locally significant. The disticntion needs to be between societies that are actively encouraging and disseminating primary academic research (which should be classed as notable) and those that are merely educating or entertaining members by regugitating information that is already well-known. I should add that I am not a Mormon and take little interest in their affairs. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (striking second boldfaced vote -- one bold vote per user even after a relist. WP rule, n.b. I also voted keep above, so not a suppression of views) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I would dearly, dearly love to say that this historical society were notable, because groups like this are the lifeblood of the study of local history. But despite that, I can't find any substantial secondary coverage of the group that would indicate they meet the WP:GNG. Darn. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - this is not a local historical society; it is a group affilaited with the huge, world-wide LDS church. FWIW, I am a Trinitarian. 20:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Not really, it originated in the Community of Christ, a much smaller offshoot of the LDS church and studies their history in particular. --Randykitty (talk) 04:52, 14 February 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.