Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl A. Esplin

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. Unlike in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin W. Pearson, there are more sources here, which would need a more in-depth discussion. Sandstein 09:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl A. Esplin

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches per WP:BEFORE are only providing quotations from the subject (which are primary sources), minor passing mentions and name checks in independent reliable sources. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability, and primary sources found in searches also do not qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep. There is quite a lot of coverage of her activities, as a parenting educator, as an LDS leader on offering aid to refugees, and as an advocate of civility for activists on family and gender role issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Could you post some of those sources here, so others can assess them? Are they primary or secondary sources? Do they provide passing mentions or significant coverage? Are they reliable, or unreliable? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Northamerica1000, I hope that you will rephrase that request. I have, as anyone who checks can see, already begun sourcing the page. However, and more to the point, given the many AfDs in widely diverse topic areas where where we meet, it is discourteous for you to imply that I add sources, or argue that sources exist unless I have run searches and found sources. I do not add unreliable sources. Where you and I differ, is that, as WP:SIGCOV makes clear, a sentence can be SIGCOV, and I do add such coverage, while you dismiss some coverage on the grounds of brevity. These are difference of interpretation. Please also consider that in the process of rapidly bringing dozens of poorly sourced articles about individuals elected to leadership positions within LDS, you may have missed the notability of some of these Church leaders.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you. I routinely provide sources in AfD discussions when opining for article retention, and I gladly do so. This is a volunteer project of course, there's no obligation. I didn't know you added sources to the article, because you didn't mention it. Nowhere at WP:SIGCOV does it state that one sentence about a subject or topic is significant coverage. Not sure how you could surmise your notion from the WP:SIGCOV page, and then consider one sentence about a person to constitute significant coverage (it's not). Under your rationale, any person on the Earth who has received a single, one-sentence mention in two different reliable publications would qualify for an article. This is not how notability is qualified at all. Regarding my AfD nominations, each and every subject or topic is researched well beyond what WP:BEFORE requires. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would never argue for N on the basis of a single, brief, source. But certain brief mentions can add to a group of sources that cumulatively establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the bottom line is that brief mentions, even several of them, such as, "the subject attended an event and said something", "the subject was promoted and moved", "the subject ate a hamburger and said they liked it", etc. do not constitute significant coverage, and therefore do not establish notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which were determined by consensus. Your analysis comes across as a conflation of your own opinion regarding what should constitute notability on Wikipedia, rather than what actually does. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, on the premise that it is more useful to improve the page than to BLUDGEON, I will continue to improve the page. Do note the women's first I have already added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP:REFBOMBing an article with passing mentions and primary quotations from the subject does not qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability at all. The thesis of this nomination is that the subject does not meet notability requirements, rather than the notion that adding sources that do not qualify notability is "more useful". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is a source analysis of references in the article as of this post (link). In some instances, a url is not present in the article, but I have added links to the sources below in the table, so others can assess the depth of coverage. Some sources cannot be accessed as they lack urls, and Google searches are not providing the articles at all. The subject continues to not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Analysis
Pugmire, Genelle (28 March 2016). "Q and A with Sister Cheryl Esplin, first counselor in Primary General Presidency". Daily Herald.	Primary source consisting of an interview with the subject
Marianne Holman, "Always involved in His great work", Church News, August 14, 2010.	Primary source: not usable to establish notability
"Cheryl A. Esplin", Liahona, May 2010]	Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Stack, Peggy Fletcher (3 April 2010). "New Primary presidency chosen for LDS children". Salt Lake Tribune.	A single quotation from the subject, making the source primary in nature, and also Not WP:SIGCOV
"New General Authorities, Young Men Presidency and Primary Presidency Changes Announced", Mormon Newsroom, April 4, 2015.	Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Walch, Ted (27 March 2015). "Preparing to split up, LDS General Primary Presidency looks back on 5 years of service together". Deseret News.	Not WP:SIGCOV: Consists of one sentence about the subject, with the remaining content consisting of quotations.
"Church gets visit and training from women leaders". St. Cloud Times. 7 October 2013.	(?) – Source searches are not providing the article. It's title suggests that it likely consists of routine coverage.
Walch, Tad (21 November 2015). "Mormon women leaders visit Asia". Deseret News.	(?) – Source searches are not providing the article. It's title suggests that it likely consists of routine coverage.
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (20 March 2014). "A first: Photos of Mormon women leaders in Conference Center". Salt Lake Tribune.	Not WP:SIGCOV: A single name check
"First Presidency Announces New Primary General Presidency", Newsroom, LDS Church, 2016-04-02	Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (7 April 2015). "Defend 'traditional families' and beware of 'worldly dogma,' Mormons told". Salt Lake Tribune.	Not WP:SIGCOV: Consists of one sentence about the subject, with the remaining content consisting of quotations.
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (3 April 2010). "Families in peril, LDS leaders warn". Salt Lake Tribune.	Not WP:SIGCOV: A single name check in the image caption. The subject is not mentioned in the article body at all.
Christiansen, Barbara (28 March 2015). "LDS Women's Session focuses on family, home". Daily Herald.e	Not WP:SIGCOV: Four very short sentences, with the remaining content consisting of quotes. This has no biographical information about the subject, just the subject's opinion relative to their religion.
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (9 October 2014). "Be civil in opposing gay marriage, Mormon apostle says". Salt Lake Tribune.	Not WP:SIGCOV: One short sentence about the subject, and a single (primary) quotation.
"General Auxiliary Leaders: Sister Cheryl A. Esplin", lds.org	Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Teaching Our Children to Understand. Cheryl A. Esplin - April 2012 General Conference. Daily Herald	Primary source: not usable to establish notability

Keep The multiple sources show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Check out WP:42, which summarizes notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Per Wikipedia's standards, the subject is not notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles generally require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:28, 31 October 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.