Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History

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. Reviewing the arguments put forward in this discussion, the deletes brought up notability and reliable sources, while the keeps generally consisted of arguments like "importance", the frequently-used WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, being 24th on a niche listing, attacking the nominator and Wikipedia's bias, books being mentioned by people and reviewed by other people. Although well-expressed and with some legitimacy, Robert Horning's comments went against the general trend of the consensus about notability, so therefore on the issue of notability his opinion couldn't be given too much weight in forming consensus. All-in-all, I believe that there is a consensus of established Wikipedians who believe this article should be deleted based on legitimate factors. Daniel 08:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History

No indication of why this book is notable. On Amazon, but with sales rank below 1.1 million. NawlinWiki 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Although amazon and buy.com permit vanity publishers~~(Not self-published after all) the book seems to be listed in quite a few online bookstores, including those which specialize in textbooks. It's also listed as a resource on BYU's magazine [1]. Considering the specific niche of the subject matter, I believe it passes WP:NB, but only barely. The article needs a lot of improvement, and I'd support a prod if it's not improved. - superβεεcat 18:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This book is a very important book in its category and the Book of Mormon studies would be incomplete without it. This book shows all Book of Mormon locations in the old world and how they were discouvered. Cmmmm 19:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete ~~and merge any valuable content to Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon~~ - not clear why this requires another article. Bigdaddy1981 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main content seems to be a map - which already exists in Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon, so there is nothing in my view to merge. Bigdaddy1981 20:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is possible for self-published books to be notable, but it would require extremely strong reviews,The listing in the BYU magazine is not a strong review, just a notice in an article about recent books. Listings in online bookstores is not sufficient for notability, no matter how many there are. DGG (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, it is not self-published, rather it is a Ceder Fort publication. Cursory googling shows this to be (all things considered) an important LDS/mormon publisher. Under WP:NB, I think this most resembles the section regarding academic books, as this is a specialized niche sort of publication, which seems to be sold in a lot of online textbook stores. Therefore, the notability of the publisher can be considered. My knowledge of the actual subject matter (LDS) is negligible at best, so I don't know whether Cthe subject matter itself is addressed elsewhere, or whether it is cited in other religious commentaries. - superβεεcat 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon per Bigdaddy1981. NN by itself, with zero indy cites, and notability is not inherited. Bearian 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence that it is worth merging or linking--adding all books on a subject in an article, or a links to an article is spam. DGG (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got spam asking me to review my vote. I can't say this would be a keeper. One link, here,[2] misspelled endorsement and has 3 reviews from three persons, only one of whom is a scholar, LDS or otherwise. I'm now leaning towards Delete unless I can be convinced the other way. Bearian 17:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book is on the Amazon Book of Mormon bestseller list.84.146.194.126 15:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where is that list please?DGG (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon if the article is not going to get any larger. I do not see how it can get much larger if it is about the book. But if the creator of the article plans to expand, then Keep, as fairly noteable. --Blue Tie 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — I personally support the subject of this book, but the article has been around since the 2nd of this month. It is still a stub. Since this doesn't appear to be changing, merge what is useful from this (stub) article into Archaeology and the Book of Mormon then delete this article. If there is significant information available at a later date, then this article can be recreated. At that time, we can evaluate it for notability. — Val42 05:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added information to this article and I now think that this article is better and can stay on wikipedia.Cmmmm 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Response All that Cmmmm appears to have added is a list of chapters and a plug for the book by another Mormon scholar (hardly an independent source). NawlinWiki 14:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — I have reviewed the additions. These additions seem to provide what was discovered, by whom and when, but don't provide the "Documented Evidences" that would seem to be required for a proper treatment of this book. There are also no independent reviews, and there are no claims of notability for this book. I hate to seem like I'm piling on, but I don't want you to later accuse me of coming up with yet-another-reason-of-shooting-this-article-down.

Like I said above, I support the topic of this article (check my user page), but this article doesn't seem like Wikipedia material. (I had an article speedily deleted, so I certainly can sympathize with you.) Merge the useful information into Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, but not the obviously copyright-violating map. I would like enough information in that article that it could be split off into two articles: old world and new world. — Val42 02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--confirm deletion I was asked to take another look. The "Endorsements" that were added are not reviews. They are really in the l of book-jacket blurbs, and not publications. People write these for their friends and associates as favors. They are neither reliable or truly third party, for they appear at the discretion of the publisher, and are uniformly favorable, regardless of the book. they have just about the strength of a posted readers review on a site like amazon--perhaps less, because posted reviews are occasionally neutral or negative, and these blurbs never are. And there is no book that doesnt have them. We consistently do not use them in WP. DGG (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Non-notable, no sources or cites, stub, clearly POV in favor of the book. --Orange Mike 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Want the people who want that this book should be deleted a evangelical christian opinion on this book. I think there is a bias against this book here because it presents possible locations and sites for Book of Mormon events and some people do not want books about the Book of Mormon on wikipedia which claim to have found direct evidences for the Book of Mormon. Cmmmm 16:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm not an evangelical Christian or a Mormon or indeed an opponent of either group and I can assure you my view on the matter is not a result of any such bias. It's a good idea to assume good faith at first. Bigdaddy1981 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this book fails WP:NB as far as I can tell. Aside from notability of the book itself, the article doesn't seem to consist of anything more than a chapter summary and endorsement blurbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diletante (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I found out that this book is on the 14th place of the Book of Mormon Bestsellers at amazon.com84.146.210.159 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a bestseller in a niche market is not necessarily an indication of notability. The real accepted indicators of notability do not seem to have been met in this case. I would support recreation of the article if independent notability were to be established, but do not at this time. John Carter 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a Criticism section.Cmmmm 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

- Response - 1) sign your entries; 2) "Criticism" sections are not good Wikipedia format; 3) the only "criticism" in that section is a quote from a review on somebody's website, saying one of the guesses is rather iffy. This is still a Strong delete. --Orange Mike 16:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - we have 54,000 articles on cartoon characters; this is still a rather new article and could use some additional editing, but it would seem it could be expanded and result in a worthy article. There mere fact that the book is mentioned on Amazon is notable! Possible merge, but it would seem like we give it until the end of the month; if the article has not been sufficiently expanded a merge would be appropriate. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - No, "mentioned on Amazon" can apply to even the most obscure piece of self-published fluff from a vanity press. There is no article to merge it into. --Orange Mike 16:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a review of this book which is 20 pages long. So nobody can say that there are not any reviews about this book.(review 20 pages)The Wrong Place For Lehi´s Trail and the Valley of Lemuel and I wrote something about Nephi & the Oil Sheiks TourCmmmm 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- comment - Nobody claimed there were no reviews of the book (although websites like that are not reliable sources for anything). None of this makes the book notable; and the tour is completely irrelevant to the book's notability. --Orange Mike 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC) - Besides, if you go to the link you will see that it's a review of an entirely different book![reply]

Comment I´m outraged that Orange Mike first lies, you can read Review of George Potter and Richard Wellington. Lehi in the Wilderness. Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 2003. xv + 191 pp., with bibliography. $39.95 on the first page of this review and then edits my comment.Cmmmm 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

- Lies? You just admitted that that is a review of an entirely different book; where is the lie in that? I'd remove the strikeout, as perhaps not the best way to highlight the false entry, and apologize for that; but it's still a review of an entirely different book altogether, as you yourself admit!

- - Comment Lehi in the Wilderness is the headtitle of this book and 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History is the subtitle of this book. The reviewer uses always Lehi in the Wilderness, but this is the same book with the same authors and the same publisher.

(for those who can not think) Cmmmm 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

- - - That was unclear; I do apologize. Book articles normally do not include the subtitles (for one thing, the semicolon can mess up some computer links), and this threw me off; if this article is retained, the article title needs to be changed to just Lehi in the Wilderness. Please, assume good faith here. We're all trying to make the Wikipedia better. --Orange Mike 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it remains the case that a single review does not show the notability of a book. there are several hundred books on the subject of finding the correlation between the events in the Book of Mormon with geography and history: OCLC shows Undoubtedly a few of them are notable. This is not one: The proof of this is that WorldCat shows only 8 libraries holding it--3 of which are branches of BYU and 1 is LC. BYU, of course, collects all books on the subject, notable or not. No other university library in the world has a copy. The subject of the book is notable, the book is not. DGG (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I will first say that I have nothing against LDS, and have enjoyed long series of conversations with LDS missionaries in my area. At the same time, I have no connection to the church of LDS. Now, my reasoning. This book seems to be a non-notable example of an arguably notable genre. I'd be happy to see some evidence of notability, but I can't see it either on the page or on this AfD. If there is an article related to this genre or area of study, I'm sure it would be acceptable to mention this book (along with many others) in that article. Even if the article were to be kept, it would require a lot of cleanup (a contents section???). SamBC(talk) 00:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Speaking as somebody who is LDS and a little more familiar with the LDS Culture, I have never heard of this particular publisher... Cedar Fort Publishing. If it were "mainstream" LDS publishing, it would be something like Deseret Books or Signature Books. Still, a quick Google search found this list of LDS publishers by a group of LDS authors which can be found here: http://www.latterdayauthors.com/ldspublishers.htm Cedar Fort Publishing is listed as one of the companies who has published work from LDS authors in the past, and having published more than just this one book. Another list can be found here, also with Cedar Fort listed: http://www.ldstorymakers.com/ldspubs2.html
I guess the real issue here is what defines notability. This is not a self-published book, but it is from a smaller press and by authors who are otherwise relatively unknown. If you go into any large bookstore, you will find hundreds or even thousands of books from publishers of this size, covering comparatively obscure topics like this. The line for notability has become somewhat more relaxed over the years for Wikipedia, and with now over 2 million articles, it would be hard to really define the criteria. If it were genuinely a self-published book, I would say delete this article, but that is not the case. And this book is sold in the general LDS book market. --Robert Horning 13:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant notability guideline is WP:BK. At this point, I don't feel that it sufficiently meets any of the criteria. SamBC(talk) 13:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book is mentioned by Hugh Nibley84.146.216.186 14:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added more comments about this book by LDS organisations and FARMS to show that this book is really important.Cmmmm 15:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)
Comment I ask =again, if the LDS think it important, why have so few libraries bought it? Not everything sold in the LDS market is notable. Many other things are--many other books on this topic are held in many libraries. DGG (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book was written by a private project called the Nephi Project. The books of this project are not as often in libraries as the other LDS books because this project is a private project and not funded by the state of Utah like for example FARMS. But this book is very important for Book of Mormon scholars so it should stay on wikipedia.84.146.235.212 12:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Sam BC Redirect or merge. Not a page unto itself. Tiptopper 14:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subjects covered by this book are referenced in the articles on Nahom and Bountiful (Book of Mormon). This book is also referenced in those articles. However, other books on this same subject exist, some of which are given more weight by LDS scholars. If we were to have an article for this book, we would have to potentially create articles for the others. This is not the only definitive book on the subject matter. In my opinion, it would be better to add the relevant material from this book to the subject articles rather than create an article specifically for this book. Bochica 04:24, 1 October 2007 (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.