Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl C. Lant


 * 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. Michig (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheryl C. Lant

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Various source searches are only providing name checks, short quotations, and very fleeting passing mentions in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America1000 05:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The general presidents of the primary are clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – The above keep !vote is not based upon Wikipedia's notability standards. Furthermore, there is no presumed notability for religious subjects . North America1000 07:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable on a basic level. More articles on female leadership in Christian communities, particularly Mormonism, would IMHO be beneficial to Wikipedia. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding the !vote directly above, while you're entitled to your personal opinion, –
 * 1) The subject being female does not create notability; notability is not gender-based, and notability is also not based upon hunches (e.g. "seems notable")
 * 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 06:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: With the two Keep !votes lacking guideline or policy basis, and the two Delete !votes having substantial weight, I see consensus tending towards Delete here; but to be on the safe side, am relisting for a week more to explore if clearer consensus can be garnered
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO all the sources are affiliated. The keep !vote stating that all general presidents of the primary are clearly notable should be ignored as per WP:Clearly notable and I agree with the analysis of the other keep !vote, which is a case of WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC and a personal opinion not based on policy or guidelines. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes   03:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Contrary to the nominator's claims, there is presumed notability for some religious subjects. If this extends to Catholic bishops it should extend to the top leaders of international religious organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Contrary to the claim directly above, WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES is a supplement, which states in part atop, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." It is not a guideline or policy. At the end of the day, it remains that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia . North America1000 20:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and does not demonstrate adequate notability. The keep arguments are based on opinion, not policy. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as subject has not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and therefore does not meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are Church publications and no more independent than any other organization's public relations output. Search of newspaper databases finds an interesting pattern where apparent non-routine independent coverage (e.g. in Deseret News) eventually shows itself as either written by Church News staff or derived from LDS newsroom releases. Consensus is that religious subjects have to meet the notability guidelines. Many other religious subjects do, hence the results documented in WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. This subject does not. Bakazaka (talk) 04:15, 30 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.