Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl A. Esplin (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 delete.  Sandstein  19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheryl A. Esplin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subject that continues to fail WP:BASIC. See below for a source analysis from the previous AfD discussion. – North America1000 17:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The so called primary sources are secondary newspaper sources. The attempt to call others not significant coverage is an abuse of the term. The whole nomination is misussing terms. Articles published in news papers, subject to editors other than the subject, are not primary sources. This is part of a long standing pattern of nominations seeking to exclude a huge swath of Latter-day Saint sources. This nomination is even worse considering it is a rehash of a previous nomination. In the last there were two keep votes and no one supported this editors crusade of seeking to wipe out articles on Latter-day Saints, especially Latter-day Saint women. This is becoming tedious. The analysis involves moving the goal posts. Articles do not need to provide biographical information to be signifant coverage. If papers feel the persons remarks are worth reporting on, than this is a sign of notability. Every source adds at least some to notability, and at least 3 are independet, 3rd party sources that have enough coverge to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding "the so called primary sources are secondary newspaper sources":
 * Church News is owned by the LDS Church. This is a primary source; it is not an independent, secondary source.
 * Mormon Newsroom is the official newsroom of the LDS Church. This is a primary source; it is not an independent, secondary source.
 * Liahona (magazine) is the official international magazine of The LDS Church; it is not an independent, secondary source.
 * Also, this nomination has nothing to do with the subject's gender as insinuated above, and notability is not gender-based.
 * Furthermore, passing mentions and name checks ≠ significant coverage, and just do not qualify notability. North America1000 03:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional input on independence of sources required.
 * Comment Note that user JohnPackLambert as creator of this article is not an uninvolved editor. valereee (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Concur with the nominator's evaluation of sources as not independent (lds.org, Liahona, Church News) or routine coverage and quotes from church PR that are not significant coverage of this article's subject. The two sources with question marks above are no better. The St. Cloud Times article's entire coverage of the subject is "Cheryl A. Esplin, a counselor in the General Primary Presidency of the Church, provided training to women who support parents in teaching children." The Deseret News story on the visit to Asia is actually the church's newsroom PR blurb, lightly edited for republication, and is therefore not independent. It doesn't add up to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Readers can find the church's PR publications without Wikipedia's help. Bakazaka (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - The subject fails multiple notability criteria: WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and probably is a COI as well. Skirts89 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete—I agree with Bakazaka and the views expressed in earlier noms. The sources simply aren't independent or notable enough in coverage otherwise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:28, 25 January 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.