Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Stokes


 * 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. Tone 16:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Catherine Stokes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage.  scope_creep Talk  13:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I see four independent sources giving in-depth coverage of this person. This means it passes WP:GNG.--TM 15:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are they not very local, defeating the whole point of SIGCOV?  scope_creep Talk  16:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You may want to re-read the policy.--TM 16:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is what I thought, a non-answer. As far as I'm concerned it is minimal, local coverage only, that fails to pass WP:SIGCOV, nor WP:BIO. It has been previously deleted at Afd and as supplied, the references are not sufficient to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. scope_creep Talk  16:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The location of the source is immaterial. Here is the standard by which to judge this article: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject." Are the sources significant? Yes. Is there more than one? Yes. Are they secondary, reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject? Yes. --TM 17:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Locality is not part of WP:N. Scope may be thinking of WP:AUD or WP:GEOSCOPE. The former applies to organisations and adding it in for people was (it seems) rejected but its removal from organisations was also rejected. The latter applies for events (in a rather weak form). Thincat (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite often Deseret News is questioned on grounds of lack of independence on LDS matters rather than for its locality. WP reported status is that it is reliable but we have no consensus on independence. Thincat (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems to be good-RS. Thanks for that . I'm think WP:AUD is more applicable. The coverage for the most part is interviews, there no secondary sources of any real value. I can't see Salt Lake Tribune as its not GDPR compliant scope_creep Talk  11:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I see two non-trivial sources and see that the subject passes WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And what they be exactly?  scope_creep Talk  16:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep We have sourcing to the Salt Lake Tribune which is a major regional newspaper. There is adequate sourcing here. I am guessing if you did a deep dive on Chicago sources back to when she received her highest government appointment you would find more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2019 (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.