Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie D. Parkin (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 keep. I know there is disagreement about the quality of the new sources added to the article but I find the consensus in this discussion is to Keep it in the project. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Bonnie D. Parkin
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. References are generally primary and/or passing mentions which doesn't establish notability.  scope_creep Talk  10:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Christianity,  and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not really feeling Church News and Deseret News as sources on this one in any case... Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Seems absurd that the default for a General Relief Society President is not deserves an article. But I know that's another discussion. Thmazing (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It only deserves an articles if there is sufficient independent secondary sources that are reliable and indepth, i.e. significant. They are not for this. All the new references that have gone in are all passing mentions and WP:PRIMARY. We will go through the references and explain why they are junk.   scope_creep Talk  08:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This extensive profile was originally published in the Salt Lake Tribune, which is independent. It's not enough to go only by the sources currently in the article. Jahaza (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep between the Salt Lake Tribune and judicious use of the Desert News and church sources, there's enough.Jahaza (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I do not normally vote on LDS articles, which commonly suffer from the problem that LDS subjects are mainly covered in LDS sources. In this case, there is a relevant list article List of general presidencies of the Relief Society, which shows that every single successive president has a WP article.  This suggests that this is a role which is notable per se, so that there ought to be an article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that with the articles I and FormalDude added (some of which Jahaza identified above), the page now passes notability requirements. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: article has been improved with multiple sources that pass WP:BASIC. –– FormalDude  (talk)  08:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The references are still terrible and constitute a whole list of passing mentions, profiles, PR, interviews and press-releases. They are the usual mix of transient mentions that don't constitute secondary coverage that signifcant and in-depth. We will do through the references today.   scope_creep Talk  09:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles like we have here shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. –– FormalDude  (talk)  10:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.