Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol F. McConkie (3rd 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. Per the analysis of the sources being passing mentions of, or quotes from the subject. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC:
 * Various WP:BEFORE searches are only providing passing mentions and name checks in reliable sources. Some primary sources were found in searches, such as a sermon by the subject and the subject speaking at events, but these are not usable to establish notability.
 * The two independent sources in the article do not provide significant coverage; just minor mentions. The remaining sources in the article are primary or unreliable, which do not establish notability.
 * The subject has not received independent, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to qualify an article. North America1000 11:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Reading the previous nomination's Keep votes, which were as whole ignoring the fact that reliable independent sources need to be significant in coverage as per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, is just making me shake my head. I was unable to find anything significant regarding to her and thus she also fails WP:BASIC. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Deseret News and Salt-Lake Tribune are independent of the LDS church, but I'm not seeing the "significant coverage" that we should be looking for. The Salt Lake Tribune article possibly does do more than discuss her in passing (i.e., they discuss her as part of a group of people, but do dedicate a paragraph her) but none of the other articles appear to be so and one article isn't enough. FOARP (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources clearly rise to more than just a discussion in passing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – In my view, the sources only mention the subject; they do not provide anything even close to significant coverage. North America1000 05:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete GNG fail, inadequate sourcing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per John Pack Lambert. Multiple reliable sources (more than one) exist, so GNG is satisfied. EnPassant (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Two sources that mention a subject in passing doesn't establish notability, though. There's no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. North America1000 22:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:GNG says significant coverage in those reliable sources as well, also check WP:SIGCOV.  Multiple reliable sources alone is not enough, they also need to be significant in the coverage of the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Since this AfD is *again* going in a wrong way thanks to a misuse of WP:GNG, I will mention each source and what they cover.


 * https://www.nj.com/independentpress/index.ssf/2014/05/hundreds_gathered_in_morristow.html not a WP:SIGCOV, says only

“We are a sisterhood,” Sister McConkie noted, emphasizing the reliance church organizations place on helping one another. “We need to pull together to strengthen one another as daughters, mothers, and sisters.” That spirit of sisterhood appealed to April Hajek from Mendham. “I liked being in a meeting with women of all ages.” Additionally, she enjoyed “the fact that the presentations were interactive.”


 * http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/56117629-78/oscarson-lds-nielsen-president.html.csp not a WP:SIGCOV, says only

Carol McConkie, Oscarson's first counselor, earned her degree in English education from Arizona State University. It was there she met her husband, Oscar W. McConkie III, who became a prominent Salt Lake City attorney. McConkie, a mother of seven, has served in every LDS auxiliary at the local level and then spent the past five years on the Young Women General Board. Before that, she served, with her husband, overseeing the church's San Jose, Calif., Mission.


 * And Exponent reference is a blog which does not contribute towards notability. So is this what we are going to build notability on GNG and article on? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Yep, WP:BASIC just isn't met. Not seeing how this could be interpreted as significant coverage; it clearly is not. North America1000 04:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm actually wondering what is notable about her. The only real claim to notability seems to be that she was the first counselor to the Mormon Youth organization, which Wikipedia describes as an ancillary organization. Add that role to coverage that sounds like a church newsletter, and you have a notability question.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – It's also worth mentioning that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. North America1000 06:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * North America, you are more experience than I: do you see a claim of notability here? Maybe this should have been speedied?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't Panic No need to speedy this. Present consensus is clearly for delete, absent anyone finding new references substantiating notability. Like I said above, maybe the SLT article does discuss her more than just in passing, but it's the only one that does and no other article found so far does. One article alone isn't enough to substantiate notability, so so long as things remain that way the closer will likely delete. Moreover, right now it is 4 to 2 in favour of delete. FOARP (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Her career with the Young Women General Board, and as a female Mormon lay leader, seems to establish some notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding the !vote directly above –
 * 1) The subject being female does not create notability; notability is not gender-based, and notability is also not based upon personal hunches (e.g. "seems to establish some notability")
 * 2) There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.
 * 3) The utter lack of reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage about the subject is exactly why the subject is not notable, as per Wikipedia's standards.
 * – North America1000 06:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – lack of coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. Also, it took me a second to realise that "first counsellor" is not a claim of notability, it's simply the job title. Brad  v  16:17, 22 November 2018 (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.