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.
This subject is non-notable because they do not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in
WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple of name checks, very minor passing mentions and primary source quotations from sermons. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America100007:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Hi
Lightburst: The source you provided is essentially a primary source, consisting mostly of quotations of a sermon the subject performed. The source provides virtually no biographical information about the subject, and is essentially a rehash of a sermon. Furthermore, multiple reliable sources that provide significant, independent (non-primary) coverage is required to establish notability, not just one source. North America100019:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The source has editorial oversight WP:RS. The subject of this article is a prominent figure in LDS. I admitted this subject is borderline which is why I said weak keep.
Lightburst (
talk)
21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The linked source is actually Church News, an official church publication that is included in Deseret News. You can tell because the byline says Church News. It is not an independent source. It is literally the church's coverage of itself.
Bakazaka (
talk)
20:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Yep, Church News is an entirely primary source. Per the Church News article, the publication is "owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)". The source cannot be used to establish notability. North America100003:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree with most of the rationale discussed above. One clarification: most/all of the sourcing is not independent of the subject, (and since no other sources exist, this fails
WP:BASIC) but I disagree with the assertion that they are primary sources. The authors of, for example, the church news, would not be the subject of the article and therefore this would be a secondary source. However, since it is not an independent source, that is where it falls short.
Rollidan (
talk)
01:24, 25 July 2019 (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.
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.
This subject is non-notable because they do not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in
WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple of name checks, very minor passing mentions and primary source quotations from sermons. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America100007:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Hi
Lightburst: The source you provided is essentially a primary source, consisting mostly of quotations of a sermon the subject performed. The source provides virtually no biographical information about the subject, and is essentially a rehash of a sermon. Furthermore, multiple reliable sources that provide significant, independent (non-primary) coverage is required to establish notability, not just one source. North America100019:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The source has editorial oversight WP:RS. The subject of this article is a prominent figure in LDS. I admitted this subject is borderline which is why I said weak keep.
Lightburst (
talk)
21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The linked source is actually Church News, an official church publication that is included in Deseret News. You can tell because the byline says Church News. It is not an independent source. It is literally the church's coverage of itself.
Bakazaka (
talk)
20:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Yep, Church News is an entirely primary source. Per the Church News article, the publication is "owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)". The source cannot be used to establish notability. North America100003:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree with most of the rationale discussed above. One clarification: most/all of the sourcing is not independent of the subject, (and since no other sources exist, this fails
WP:BASIC) but I disagree with the assertion that they are primary sources. The authors of, for example, the church news, would not be the subject of the article and therefore this would be a secondary source. However, since it is not an independent source, that is where it falls short.
Rollidan (
talk)
01:24, 25 July 2019 (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.