Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean M. Davies (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Dean M. Davies
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches provide no independent, significant biographical coverage, just quotations from the subject about religious beliefs, quotations from the subject acting as a spokesperson fleeting passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, the entire article is reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America1000 07:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand by my 2014 statement at AFD1 "Weak delete I liken this to a professor with no mentions in the press other than websites from his own university. We need to know that he is considered a ntable person to the general public."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep there are more than a few references to his actions in this role, though most are fairly minor: .  The various primary sources are sufficient to write a short article.  I think the role is prominent enough to justify a keep with this coverage. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. power~enwiki's links have given me pause. I am leaning toward weak keep. But not sure yet. Den... (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Below is a source analysis of the articles posted by power~enwiki above.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Source !! Analysis
 * || Consists of a name check and then all quotations from the subject, acting as a spokesperson. Being just about all quotations makes this a primary source, which does not establish notability. Furthermore, this article provides just about no biographical information about the subject.
 * || An article about the subject attending an event and acting as a spokesperson, consisting mostly of quotations, making it primary in nature . This also provides basically no biographical information about the subject, and is just minor routine coverage about an event, rather than the subject.
 * }
 * A subject's role in a religious organization does not create presumed notability, because there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia . What is needed is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Passing mentions and name checks are not significant coverage, and articles consisting mostly of quotations are primary sources. Furthermore, regarding the notion above of "the various primary sources are sufficient to write a short article", this is entirely backwards, because to qualify for an article, notability per Wikipedia's standards needs to exist, then an article should be created, rather than vice versa. North America1000 04:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * }
 * A subject's role in a religious organization does not create presumed notability, because there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia . What is needed is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Passing mentions and name checks are not significant coverage, and articles consisting mostly of quotations are primary sources. Furthermore, regarding the notion above of "the various primary sources are sufficient to write a short article", this is entirely backwards, because to qualify for an article, notability per Wikipedia's standards needs to exist, then an article should be created, rather than vice versa. North America1000 04:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  16:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Northamerica. Convincing source analysis. Den... (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per NA1000. Spam LDS. Refs have been analysed convincingly. Szzuk (talk) 20:44, 30 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.