Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl A. Esplin


 * 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. Unlike in Articles for deletion/Kevin W. Pearson, there are more sources here, which would need a more in-depth discussion.  Sandstein  09:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Cheryl A. Esplin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches per WP:BEFORE are only providing quotations from the subject (which are primary sources), minor passing mentions and name checks in independent reliable sources. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability, and primary sources found in searches also do not qualify notability. North America1000 10:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * leaning keep. There is quite a lot of coverage of her activities, as a parenting educator, as an LDS leader on offering aid to refugees, and as an advocate of civility for activists on family and gender role issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you post some of those sources here, so others can assess them? Are they primary or secondary sources? Do they provide passing mentions or significant coverage? Are they reliable, or unreliable? North America1000 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Northamerica1000, I hope that you will rephrase that request. I have, as anyone who checks can see, already begun sourcing the page.  However, and more to the point, given the many AfDs in widely diverse topic areas where where we meet, it is discourteous for you to imply that I add sources, or argue that sources exist unless I have run searches and found sources.  I do not add unreliable  sources.   Where you and I differ, is that, as WP:SIGCOV makes clear, a sentence can be SIGCOV, and I do add such coverage, while you dismiss some coverage on the grounds of brevity.  These are difference of interpretation.  Please also consider that in   the process of rapidly bringing dozens of poorly sourced articles about individuals elected to leadership positions within LDS, you may have missed the notability of some of these Church leaders.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's up to you. I routinely provide sources in AfD discussions when opining for article retention, and I gladly do so. This is a volunteer project of course, there's no obligation. I didn't know you added sources to the article, because you didn't mention it. Nowhere at WP:SIGCOV does it state that one sentence about a subject or topic is significant coverage. Not sure how you could surmise your notion from the WP:SIGCOV page, and then consider one sentence about a person to constitute significant coverage (it's not) . Under your rationale, any person on the Earth who has received a single, one-sentence mention in two different reliable publications would qualify for an article. This is not how notability is qualified at all . Regarding my AfD nominations, each and every subject or topic is researched well beyond what WP:BEFORE requires. North America1000 14:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would never argue for N on the basis of a single, brief, source. But certain brief mentions can add to a group of sources that cumulatively establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the bottom line is that brief mentions, even several of them, such as, "the subject attended an event and said something", "the subject was promoted and moved", "the subject ate a hamburger and said they liked it", etc. do not constitute significant coverage, and therefore do not establish notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which were determined by consensus. Your analysis comes across as a conflation of your own opinion regarding what should constitute notability on Wikipedia, rather than what actually does. North America1000 16:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, on the premise that it is more useful to improve the page than to BLUDGEON, I will continue to improve the page. Do note the women's first I have already added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WP:REFBOMBing an article with passing mentions and primary quotations from the subject does not qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability at all. The thesis of this nomination is that the subject does not meet notability requirements, rather than the notion that adding sources that do not qualify notability is "more useful". North America1000 10:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Below is a source analysis of references in the article as of this post (link). In some instances, a url is not present in the article, but I have added links to the sources below in the table, so others can assess the depth of coverage. Some sources cannot be accessed as they lack urls, and Google searches are not providing the articles at all. The subject continues to not meet WP:BASIC. North America1000 11:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The multiple sources show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Check out WP:42, which summarizes notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Per Wikipedia's standards, the subject is not notable. North America1000 00:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:28, 31 October 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.