Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoshihiko Kikuchi

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. Sandstein 08:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshihiko Kikuchi

Yoshihiko Kikuchi (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)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very short passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. Primary sources and unreliable sources found in various WP:BEFORE searches are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Clearly WP:PROMO, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Notability has not been shown. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:AuthorAuthor, would you be willing to revisit this, in light of sources brought below. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kikuchi rates mention in The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint Church History, which is seletive in only including articles on General Authorities the editors felt were important enough to cover, it does not include articles on all general authorities. The Mauss and Bringhurst sources add two scholarly sources that mention Kikuchi. This link to a Dialogue entry [1] shows statements by Kikuchi being engaged with in a scholarly, indepdent setting. Lengthen TYour Stride makes multiple mentions of Kikuchi [2] providing contextualized analysis of his call as a general authority. He also is mentioned in R. Lanier Britsch's history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Asia, although I could not say how substantially. He gets mention here [3] in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint history: The Pacific Isles, edited by Reid L. Neilson, a very respected historian, although it is not a long mention. On the whole this adds up to notability, and I am not convined that we would not find more if we had adequate access to 1970s newspapers from the time of his call as a general authority.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. Primary sources such as these do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not how primary source is defined. You confuse publication with creation issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As a tax-exempt religious organization, the LDS Church avoids directly owning for-profit ventures, because this would threaten its tax-exempt status, so it uses the church-owned Deseret Management Corporation as a holding and management company to own and manage for-profit ventures, one of which is the Deseret Book Company, which publishes the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History. It's all highly interrelated with the LDS Church, making it a primary source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, several university press books by notable scholars discuss his role in the Church, and the fact that he is the first native Asian to be called as a general authority of the LDS Church:

• Armand Mauss, All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, 2010, University of Illinois Press
• Newell G. Bringhurst, Darron Smith, co-editors Black and Mormon, 2005, University of Illinois Press.
• Reid L. Neilson, Taking the Gospel to the Japanese, 1901-2001, 2010, University of Utah Press, where he is quoted or discussed on pp. 327, 352, 353, 354, 358, 373, & 375.

More sclolarly sourcing appears to be available in gScholar with keywords (there is a notable scientist with the same name.) I searched ""Yoshihiko Kikuchi" + LDS [4], but there are probably better keywords to use. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• for example, Numano, Jiro. “Hasty Baptisms in Japan: The Early 1980s in the LDS Church.” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 36, no. 4, 2010, pp. 18–40. JSTOR, JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/23291122]. is a close examination of Kikuchi's leadership in Japan, it is highly critical of what Numano describes as a competition among regions to win converted, which Nuamo describes as having negative consequences. I do not pretend to have read all of these books, and I red only some of this article. But it sure looks to me as though subject meets WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• That Neilson reference looks odd. I think it's the title from the BYU Press 2006 edited volume but the publication info from Early Mormon Missionary Activities in Japan, 1901-1924 (which is unlikely to have Kikuchi information in it). If the reference is to the former, then there's a good chance those pages are the part written by Terry Nelson, who did an MA thesis on the church in Japan: [5] Bakazaka (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject meets WP:GNG. I have added text, sourced to the Numano article cited above, that provides another perspective and helps offset the hagiographic tendencies inherent in relying on church sources to write an article about a church leader. Bakazaka (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Looking at the sources, the Journal of Mormon History has had very limited distribution, thus a limited readership, according to World Cat here and here. An LDS member making good within the church, then being mentioned in a church history book and a Mormon encyclopedia, plus a 2-sentence mention on a page in Black and Mormon, a 184-page book, do not add up in establishing notability. Here is the actual mention in Black and Mormon: "The official church auspices were indicated by the keynote speaker, Elder Yoshihiko Kikuchi of the Seventy, a Japanese national. Incongruous as that may seem in a black LDS American gathering, Elder Kikuchi's remarks were very well received as sensitive and supportive." I reiterate: It continues to fail WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment –Thus far, only the Numano source, which I cannot access, appears to be usable to demonstrate notability. However, multiple independent sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Below is a review of sources presented in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment excluding BYU Press books from being reliable sources because of the ownership of the university ignores the fact that BYU press seeks to be a reliable scholarly publication and publish scholarly works. Its ownership structure does not disqualify it from being a signifcant reliable secondary source any more than the ownership structure of Catholic University of America or the University of Notre Dame disqualifies all publications of their university presses from being reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - besides the Deseret story about the temple in Japan, where Kikuchi's birthplace is mentioned, there's virtually no biographical coverage of him in current or a Google search that I can find. I did find a lawsuit against the church that he was part of, albeit in a minor role. [[8]] Most of the background info in the article now is unsourced or stems from a primary source (a dead link interview podcast). If there was some accepted policy that says a general authority is automatically notable, like a top league sports player, that would be a different story. The general authority article itself a bit weak on sourcing, using many primary sources, with the Mormon Encyclopedia also doing heavy sourcing duty. Unless consensus is that being general authority itself is enough for a notability pass, this has to be a delete based on WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the University of Tokyo Press a RS for books about the government of Japan? What about Manchester University Press? It is housed within the university (always in one of the university's treasured, historic buildings,) it is "a department of the University of Manchester", all decisions "must be approved by the Editorial Committee, which is composed of academics based at the University of Manchester.". The Univerisity of Manchester is a public university. Is it a reliable source for books about British politicians? The British government? British political history? to me, it looks as though editors are setting up standards for the Mormon Church that are not applied by Wikipedia for books about other institutions published by university presses that those institutions control.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One easy test of independence is whether or not the press publishes books that are critical of the parent organization. I would expect to see books from the presses you name that are critical of the government or of politicians. So a question (probably for RS Talk rather than an AfD on one person) is whether or not BYU Press or Deseret or whatever publishes books that are critical of the church. Bakazaka (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. (not to mention highly subjective. Look at WP:IIS, which states, "Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (... the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic." By our own standards, if we rule that books by Brigham Young University Press cannot be used as sources for LDS-relate dtopice, we must also rule that no book by Manchester University Press can be used to source books on the government of the U.K. , and similarly with all other University Presses with financial or legal relationships to government sponsored universities. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I have taken this discussion to WP:RSN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 9 November 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.