Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia P. Pinegar (2nd nomination)

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. If anyone wants to create a redirect per the previous AFD, they're more than welcome to, but consensus in this discussion is to delete. clpo13_(talk) 20:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia P. Pinegar

[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)

A non-notable subject that continues to fail WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources has only provided fleeting passing mentions and name checks. The primary sources in the article do not qualify notability, and arguments for article retention in the previous AfD discussion were based upon personal opinion, rather than Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple secondary sources have been identified. If it is not kept, it should be merged with the article on her husband, not deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do those sources provide significant coverage or fleeting passing mentions? Sources being identified does not create automatic notability; there needs to be significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the secondary sources aren't independent and only passing mentions come up in ProQuest. We just don't have a notability policy specific to religious figures or for schools less notable than universities. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 18:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Community consensus is that LDS leaders have to pass WP:GNG (see discussions in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). Church sources (Ensign, lds.org, etc) are not independent (see WP:IIS) and therefore not usable for establishing notability. Only additional source suggested in previous AfD was...another official LDS source, with a double conflict of interest as a student newspaper covering an alumna. Search does not find significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources of this subject, just routine coverage of church announcements/PR. Coverage outside the church of "Patricia Pinegar" seems to be of a different person with the same name in a different US state. Just being able to construct sentences from passing mentions and PR quotes does not consecrate the source material as significant coverage, so subject does not pass WP:GNG. Readers can find official LDS corporate bios and PR blurbs without Wikipedia's help. Bakazaka (talk) 21:41, 22 January 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.