Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brant Gardner

Brant Gardner

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Brant Gardner (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)

I think that if this person is notable it is because of his apologetics and the books that he has authored. The fact that he has done graduate work in Mesoamerican studies likely gains him credence with his faith community, but he certainly does not pass WP:NACADEMIC, so I don't think we would argue that his notability derives from that. He may be fairly famous within Mormon circles, but I am having a hard time seeing anyone notice his apologetics outside of those circles. This is not the same thing as a William Lane Craig, e.g. This is a fairly obscure apologist whose work is lauded mostly on the basis of the ongoing vain hope of believers that there will be evidence discovered to confirm that the Book of Mormon is historical fact. jps (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Religion, Latter Day Saints, Latin America, and Utah. jps (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep: with better sourcing... I found this [1] talking about a presentation he made with some analysis of his theories presented, and [2] and [3] where more of his ideas are analyzed. Not the best sourcing, but it's a small field of study to begin with. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  One more [4] (ProQuest), much of it is "Gardner says" though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment In the second link above, it may difficult to see the relevance to this discussion right away. But Brent Gardner is discussed. The best way to see this is click on the "view all" link, then click on the relevant pages, and scroll, reading through the text. Regarding the third link above, scroll back a page or two to the beginning of the "Preface." I will i-vote later after looking at what is available. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. The Deseret News article has very little secondary coverage of Gardner, with almost everything related to him being in the form of quotes, which are not independent. Moreover, it is routine for academics to be interviewed in local papers so there must be many such pieces to count towards C7. Deseret News, as property of the LDS church, is also not an independent source on topics concerning Mormonism, so that source wouldn't count even if it was secondary SIGCOV.
  The Interpreter is an LDS-adherent journal and so is not an independent source on Mormons, and the first piece in question is firmly situated in-universe (Notice that Runnells completely ignores what Mormon and Moroni provide as eyewitness descriptions. He makes an argument based on authority that totally ignores the two most significant eyewitness authorities.) so is not a reliable source in general. The second source is the preface to Gardner's own work and so is obviously not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep as per Oaktree b. Leo1pard (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. So all we really have are LDS-dependent sources, with the Deseret News simply parroting a series of unanalyzed comments by an obscure person (Gardner) about a topic (genetics) for which he apparently has no professional/academic credentials. This is an encyclopedia - we have to do far better than that. Perhaps in the future this subject will receive a non-zero amount of secondary, independent attention (see WP:N), or perhaps they will gain some level of academic recognition (see WP:NACADEMIC); that is, maybe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. But neither of those things exist now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. There is not a single source on here that is both reliable AND independent, and the subject has very little if not no mainstream recognition. DrowssapSMM 13:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete since adequate sourcing that supports WP:NPERSON exists not. All we have really is the report in some small publication about a lecture our subject gave in support of "American Indians" being of "Hebrew descent," the one on which a contributor above hung their Weak Keep suggestion. This is a "Mormon apologist" who has "published widely on the Book of Mormon." Yet another valiant Johnpacklambert effort, but, alas, it cannot make the cut. -The Gnome (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. It appears that no independent and reliable sources discuss this person in detail. Also, this person does not make the cut as a notable academic through their contributions or achievements. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The topic doesn't appear notable Big Money Threepwood (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination and subsequent comments. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)