Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol F. McConkie


 * 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. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 05:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Carol F. McConkie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article appears to be sourced only from publications associated with her position in the Mormon church. Neither a quick Google search nor a quick Google Books search turned up a lick of coverage that wasn't published by the LDS Church, which can't be considered an independent source in the context of an LDS official p  b  p  14:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep PBP's campaign to remove most articles on important leaders of the LDS Church needs to be stopped. He has consistently expanded what he considers "LDS" sources to class everything as such. The sources here give indepth coverage of the subject, and are more independent than many sources used to create articles on politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No,, what needs to be stopped is you creating piles and piles and piles of badly sourced articles. If you want this articles consistently kept, you've got to source them when you create them!  It ain't rocket science!  p  b  p  05:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't even create this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, whoever created it needs to start sourcing his articles as well. p  b  p  05:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: User:Johnpacklambert characterization of this as a "campaign to remove most articles on important leaders of the LDS Church" is inaccurate. I only nominate articles for deletion that have no non-LDS sources.  I do this regardless of the article's creator; though JPL is among the ones who have created the most articles solely sourced from LDS sources.  p  b  p
 * Comment I have added additional sources, one of which has absolutely no connection to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the other is not in any way a Church publication either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment She appears in the Deseret News a lot. I know that's a church paper, but if she's really important in the church itself, that might mean something. It's not like LDS is small... Just my two cents! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Young Women (organization). Being first consouler in this organization is not a sufficient claim of notability for a standalone article, and there is an abvious lack of significant coverage in secondary independent sources. Redirecting the article to the organization a subject belongs is the standard outcome for individuals who don't otherwise meet specific SNGs or the GNG. Notability could be eventually revised if sources will emerge in the future, but actually it's just too soon. Cavarrone 12:46, 28 November 2015 (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.