Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol F. McConkie (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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  15:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Carol F. McConkie
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A previous AfD last November was closed as no consensus. Articles about LDS officials (just like articles about anything else) need independent sources to pass GNG. That means sources not connected with the LDS Church from where she draws her notability. Some may claim there's an exception that automatically grants notability to all high-ranking church officials. There is not. p b  p  04:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The claims in this nomination are just plain not true. There are three sources in the article that clearly pass GNG as reliable, 3rd party and indepedent by even the most stringent understnadings of the terms. The Exponant 2, one of the sources listed, is not at all afiliated with the LDS Church. It is based in Massachusetts and published by people with interest in LDS related topics, but with no actual connection with the LDS church in an formal, organizational standpoint. The New Jersey article listed in the article also has no afiliation with the LDS Church. Another source is the article is Peggy Fletcher Stark's Salt Lake Tribune article. I guess since Stark is a Mormon she is excluded as a potential author, even though any review of her work shows she has no desire to advance any interest of the LDS Church, and the paper she works for, the Salt Lake Tribune, which is in no way owned or operated by the LDS Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Put another way, we have articles on McConkie from both the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News. These are the two largest papers in Utah. If we had equally indepth articles from the two largest papers in Nevada on one individual, would anyone even nominate the article for deletion. To be fair, the article from the Tribune was not identified until just now, but I hope people in considering the deletion consider the Tribune article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Deseret News is controlled by the LDS Church and therefore isn't independent. Having a large circulation doesn't make something independent.  The Salt Lake Tribune article is probably independent, though.  p  b  p  13:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The recent discussions on Octaviano Tenorio showed that most editors do not agree with your overly broad interpretation of non-independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not true. It was closed as "no consensus", not as keep.  Besides, there have been other LDS officials deleted under the same rationale.  Instead of bringing up an aberration of an AfD, maybe bring up actual guidelines or policy?  p  b  p  06:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: This parallels the discussion about other LDS church officials.  I question the significance of this role, but the two largest-circulation Utah newspapers are significant coverage and they are independent of the subject. I think this is reasonably well-settled.    Montanabw (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment You are ignoring that fact that the editors of the Salt Lake Tribune thought this was a position of enough importance to provide indepth coverage of the holder. This is different than the discussions we have had on other such figures, in which we did not have such a case. The Women's Exponant 2, a magazine published out of the Boston area, covering her is also a difference from the coverage we have seen on some other LDS figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Deseret News could be seen as a biased source, that doesn't make it non-independent of the subject. Obviously LDS subjects are going to be of interest. The fact that she is so often in the news (hit HighBeam, too, not just Google), shows me that's she's notable. There are enough sources to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep What is the issue some people have with LDS officials having an article here on Wikipedia? McConkie's status as a member of an auxiliary presidency that serves millions of girls worldwide makes her significant. The Deseret News discussion closed with no consensus decision. That tells me that there is some merit to the arguments in favor of classifying the Deseret News as a reliable source. What's next? Are we going to suggest that any article that uses material put out by the LDS Church should be deleted? I personally believe (and my experience in this matter bears out this belief) that those proposing such deletions are antagonistic towards the Church and its leaders. Malicious intent is never sufficient grounds to delete an article, and I have found very little evidence to convince me that any of these deletion nominations for LDS articles are out of genuine concern for Wikipedia's standards and well-being. If you are going to suggest that no topic regarding a Church of 16 million people is significant because there is not sufficient coverage about it in non-LDS sources, get ready for an uprising. I think we should stop these silly, maliciously motivated nominations and get back to working together to get these articles up to the proper standard. I can guarantee that in none of these deletion nominations was sufficient time provided for proper discussion and edits to bring the articles into uniformity. Some have even been nominated for deletion within a short time after their creation. This madness must stop! --Jgstokes (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because the Mormon church is large and notable doesn't mean anybody associated with it is also notable. You're basically saying in your deletion rationale that WP:RS and WP:GNG should be ignored for any article on an LDS topic, and it's prejudiced if they aren't.  That's ridiculous.  And since there's no consensus that Deseret News is independent, it's OK to test the community's view on its independence with AfDs.  And you seem to think I'm nominating every topic associated with Mormonism for deletion.  That's inaccurate.  I only nominate the ones that have only Mormon sources.  If a bandleader is only sourced by his band's website, his article gets deleted.  If an executive is only sourced by his company's website, his article gets deleted.  Why should church leaders be any different?  p  b  p  16:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – there is an article in the Salt Lake Tribune which appears to be independent and dozens in the Deseret News, which many consider sufficiently independent of the likes of McConkie to attest reliably to her position and appearances at meetings etc. And other mentions in other publications. Oculi (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2016 (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.