Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean A. Stevens


 * 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. Several requests for relisting asked for more specifics on what references provide notability outside a single event. Specific references demonstrating this were not provided, supporting the argument that this individual is indeed notable for only a single event. If anyone feels that the event itself is notable and would like this userfied to help in creating an article on it, let me know and I'll be happy to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Jean A. Stevens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E, as the subject has only received significant coverage for being the first female to say a prayer at the end of an LDS general conference. Other aspects of the subject in independent, reliable sources are limited to passing mentions and name checks. North America1000 17:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Leaning Keep. Thing is, she's not known "only in the context of a single event,"  she's not a "a low-profile individual," and her role in the prayer event Nom menitons was both "significant" and "substantial."  This is not WP:BLP1E.  She held a significant office within the LDS hierarchy before that prayer, and went on (together with her husband, Mormons head missions two by two,) to head the LDS mission in London, these activities are covered in WP:RSes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage outside of the subject saying the prayer? I looked, and didn't find any. This is important, because subjects are not given a free pass for an article based upon their position in a religious organization; notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which does not appear to be available for this subject outside of the prayer coverage. North America1000 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * sources 7,8, 11, 12 and 13 cover her present post, at LDS London. Deseret is semi-independent of the Church, but the Salt Lake Tribune is independent.  This search  shows that her activities continue to attract some notice, albeit only a little.  Let's see what other editors find. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Below is my analysis of those sources. North America1000 17:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * #7 was published by Church News, which is owned by the LDS church. This is a primary source, and does not serve to establish notability.
 * #8 provides two sentences about the subject, and reads like it is directly from a press release. In my view, this is not significant coverage.
 * #11 is about the prayer, and furthermore, only has one sentence about the subject. This is not significant coverage.
 * #12 has some coverage, but most of it is interview content, making it primary in nature.
 * #13 has one lone passing mention . This is not significant coverage.
 * Unsurprisingly, other independent newspapers in regions with large Mormon populations, like Gannett-owned The Spectrum (Utah), and the Idaho State Journal covered her activities as one of the leaders of the Primary in the years before the prayer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There is widespread and significant coverage of her in multiple indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Said coverage, however, is all about the subject stating a prayer. This remains a WP:BLP1E situation. North America1000 01:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , umm........you of all people find her sufficiently notable? &#x222F; WBG converse 05:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm seeing enough sources to pass GNG, even though some are trivial and it is a borderline case of notability. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 16:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are the sources you mention all about the WP:BLP1E matter of saying a prayer, or has the subject received significant coverage about other matters? I haven't seen any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about the latter yet. North America1000 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be useful if the people arguing to keep would be more specific about which sources they are putting forth, and how they meet policy.
 * Delete, I concur with Northamerica1000's analysis of the (lack of) significance of the sources. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply because there is no separate article about the event.  And even if there was, the appropriate action would be merger not deletion.  The subject is notable for her milestone achievement which is highlighted in additional sources such as Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings.  It's amazing that, after the recent fuss about Donna Strickland we still have attempts to delete content about pioneering women. Andrew D. (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that Andrew mentioned this ongoing AFD of an article on "a pioneering women" on the WIR talkpage here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject has only received significant coverage for one matter, saying a prayer, that's it. WP:BLP1E applies entirely, regardless of the gender of the subject, which has no bearing on notability whatsoever. Notice the source review above regarding coverage the subject has received for other matters; this is not significant coverage at all. North America1000 23:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here solely because I noticed Andrew's somewhat canvassy message on WIR and felt I should post a notification about that message here, but now looking at the content of Andrew's !vote I gotta say I agree with NA1000: standard operating procedure when we don't have an article on the sole event for which BLP1Es are notable is to either delete the biographical article and maybe create an article on the event in its place, or to retitle and rewrite the article into a completely different article, which is de facto deletion. Furthermore, if the idea is that BLP1E doesn't apply because we don't have an article on the event and so this page shouldn't be deleted or redirected but rather retitled and refocused, then WIR is irrelevant because the goal of not having a standalone article on this woman's biography is the same. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * She was one of the three top leaders of an international organization with millions of members. She is not notable just for one event contrary to the claims of some here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it does not appear that the subject has received any significant coverage for said leadership roles. All the significant coverage is for one event, saying one prayer . Religious leaders do not get a free pass for a Wikipedia article, in part because no guideline or policy exists that provides presumed notability for said subjects. North America1000 07:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Andrew D., but you seem to be on a quest to rectify some kind of injustice here rather than focusing on the work involved in deciding whethere to keep or delete the article. (You even dismiss the work itself. In your own words, "Wikipedia editors should be editing and anything which takes them away from this activity is counter-productive"! Really?! I beg to differ, and quite strongly too.) As you probably are well aware, Wikipedia is not the place to engage in advocacy or political activism. So, if you feel that more Wikipedia articles about women should be created and for that purpose we should ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you need to take it up to the appropriate forums. This is not the place for that battle, if you think we need one. -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Gnome has got it backwards as I didn't make this nomination. It's Northamerica1000 who seems to be on a mission of some sort because it appears that they have nominated numerous articles about Mormons for deletion recently.  I don't know what that's all about but I'm just responding as a deletion patroller, reviewing the topic by reference to the facts of the matter and our policies.  I have some familiarity with this sort of topic because I have, for example, started an article about another female spiritual pioneer -- Sarah Crosby  -- and consider both topics to be reasonable content.  NA1000 seems hung up on the idea that leading a congregation in prayer is of no significance and we should delete on these grounds.  I don't agree with that opinion as it seems not to be neutral.  And I definitely don't agree that WP:BLP1E is a reason to delete as the three conditions are not met.  As WP:BLP1E is not a reason to delete, the other policies, such as WP:ATD, WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE, clearly indicate that we should not delete this. Amen. Andrew D. (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I refer you, Andrew D., to your own commentary here, wherefrom your words were lifted verbatim. As to editors proposing for deletion a bunch of related articles within a short period of time, they're not necessarily on a "mission" (biased noms, agendas, fixation, etc). It might be so but more often than not it's not. Diligent editors who identify a flaw with an article on subject XYZ would search for other, similarly flawed, XYZ-related articles. -The Gnome (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete--Per NA1000. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Seem to be plenty of sources out there to use in order to expand the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I guess that you do not need to be pointed out that you need to provide specific sources? &#x222F; WBG converse 18:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, your !vote does not address the WP:BLP1E matter at all, which is the entire basis of the nomination. The only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that appears to exist is about the subject saying one prayer at one event. North America1000 07:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This appears to be a textbook case for BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The lede says it all, she's famous for one prayer at an event. Nothing else comes close to notability. Ifnord (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Primary (LDS Church), the office she holds and one of the only articles to mention her name. <b style="color:#3399FF">Redditaddict69</b> <sup style="color:#339900">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(contribs)  05:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more re-list as this is a BLP. A number of Keep !votes are pointing out that "there are sources", some more meat on the bones would possibly be useful here.
 * Delete per nomination, since subject distinctly lacks verifiable notability and is (little) known for saying a prayer. -The Gnome (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Well, three of the keep !votes above do not address the very core basis of the nomination, that this is a WP:BLP1E situation whereby the subject is notable only for one event . One keep !vote states one's own made-up rules regarding BLP1E, erroneously stating that WP:BLP1E is somehow not applicable unless an event article already exists. Additionally, this nomination is not based upon WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, but the three mentioned !votes above are addressing the nomination as though it is (e.g. "there are sources"). North America1000 13:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E states cleary that three conditions must be satisfied for it to be applicable. These conditions are not satisfied because the subject was not a low profile person; she was a prominent person in the church.  Her role in the event was substantial and we don't have a separate article for it to merge to.  Therefore, per WP:BLP1E, we should retain this article to record both the event and its primary instigator, just like we record other pioneering women. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See Who is a low-profile individual, where a low profile individual is defined in part as a subject who "Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group, such as a professional or religious organization. The LDS Church is a religious organization. Clearly a low profile subject per Wikipedia's standards. WP:BLP1E continues to be clearly applicable. North America1000 17:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with NA and stand by my Delete. This is a textbook example of BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose that it's a matter of perspective, but I agree with Andrew Davidson,. to me, she looks like a person who is notable by our standards because she  was prominent as a leader of an important, mass membership organization.  Her activities have been covered in the press over many years, and she also had a moment of national attention that continues to be revisited in books such as American Universities and the Birth of Modern Mormonism, 1867–1940, University of North Carolina Press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don't get it regarding WP:BLP1E, but the book source you linked above (here) simply provides a one-sentence passing mention about the subject saying the prayer at the event, the basis of this nomination. This is the only matter that the subject has received significant coverage about, nothing else, and that book source doesn't even provide that, just a passing mention. Your link actually furthers the stance that it's a WP:BLP1E matter. North America1000 04:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that her prayer is mentioned in a number of books, scholarly, and journalistic sources years after the event establishes her as a person about whom others will become curious enough to look up in Wikipedia.  Moreover, your repeated assertions that the only aspect of her career and life that have garnered SIGCOV is this prayer is inaccurate, showing a misunderstanding of what significant coverage is.  Such coverage can, under our policies, be comprised of the cumulative total of coverage that is significant but brief in multiple WP:RS over many years, as is the case with this fairly well-sourced article.  Also, WP:BLUDGEONING an AfD discussion is disparaged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I provided a source analysis of the refs you provided above in the discussion . Primary sources and passing mentions do not create notability outside of the one event, in my opinion. Furthermore, well-reasoned, calm debate is never "bludgeoning" the process. Thanks for your reply regarding my query, and we will have to agree to disagree. North America1000 09:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that Stevens does not qualify as WP:BLP1E. To do so, she would have to meet "each of three conditions":
 * 1.) "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Patently untrue since WP:RS covered her before and after the event in other contexts.
 * 2.) " remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" - she became a public figure whose activities were covered in the press in 2010 when she became what National Public Radio described (in an article about the 2013 prayer,) as "a high-ranking leader in Primary, an educational arm facilitating religious instruction for children. Coverage of her pre-prayer activities in WP:RS is on the page.
 * 3.) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." obviously does not describe this case.
 * I urge editors to look at the sources on the page. Stevens is not a BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good thing you cite the prerequisites for WP:BLP1E qualification, E.M.Gregory, because we can now pick 'em apart one by one.
 * (1) The sources covering her before that one event do not amount to the subject being notable, sorry. Remember that the person should be "worthy of notice" or "of note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Almost all mentions in sources spring from the event. (2) The subject remains a low-profile individual. E.M.Gregory should have clarified that the NPR article contains indeed the phrase quoted ("E.M.Gregory") but that is the only mention the person gets in the article. It is an article devoted to the event (and its ostensible significance for Mormons) but not at all to the subject person. As to (3), the event itself is of significance strictly within the confines of the subject's Church. Not many outside sources seem to have taken notice. So, I echo your call to action:
 * I urge editors to look at the sources on the page. Stevens is strictly  a BLP1E. -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think this woman is notable on her own. Perhaps a new article, Church of the Latter Day Saints General Conference Prayer 2013? There seems to be some interest in this topic. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that the Oct. 17 comment by USER:Andrew D. (above) should probably be taken into account by closing editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the tone of several comments shows the extent to which Christianity has become one of the more highly fraught topics on WP. I see this both in the dismissive tone taken by some editors towards the significance of church-related activities and organizations, and on pages supported by sectarian enthusiasts, who take umbrage when the notability of a beloved individual or institution is questioned.  We need to tone it down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I hate to say it, because I am very convinced Stevens is notable, but I have to say the role of her giving the prayer is over stated. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints people do not "lead a congregation in prayer" they "give a prayer". Either way giving a prayer heard by tens if not hundreds of thousands is a big deal,although since the prayers are not published in the conference report, it is actually not as big as giving a talk (which Stevens also did in general conference). Another point to keep in mind is that people do not give prayers in general conference at their own initiative, they are asked to give them. Still, just because someone does not fully initiate an action does not mean that they are not notable for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This comment does help explain why an apparently important "first" for women in the LDS church (according to non-LDS sources) does not seem to rate a mention in the General Conference (LDS Church) article. The Mormonism and women article does mention the 2013 event, but without discussing Stevens or citing a source. Bakazaka (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The assertion made by Gnome that "Almost all mentions in sources spring from the event." is untrue. There is SIGCOV of her leadership, especially of her role in the Primary (LDS Church) now on the page, albeit, WP:HEY the article grew as this discussion went on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Primary (LDS_Church). The article has taken a direct hit from a WP:REFBOMB but the significant coverage is still around the single event. It's obviously possible to turn passing mentions and (repeated) quotes into an article, but that doesn't transubstantiate the original material into significant coverage. Redirection is a reasonable alternative to deletion, and had a good suggestion for a redirect target, which is unfortunately hard to find in the discussion above, so I repeat it here for emphasis: Primary (LDS_Church), which already has information on the subject. Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I almost always vote redirect if possible if I believe deletion is a solution and many users seem to back that (see this discussion). I was surprised nobody else had until now. <b style="color:#3399FF">Redditaddict69</b> <sup style="color:#339900">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(contribs)  23:15, 22 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, such as for the book sources, but I have added links to the sources below in the table, so others can assess the depth of coverage. I cannot access one ProQuest source: Google searches for it is providing nothing, and the title of the article suggests that it consists of routine, run of the mill coverage. I have researched this quite a bit, and notions above in the discussion that the subject has received significant coverage for other matters is just not substantiated in actual available sources at all. I still view this as a textbook case of WP:BLP1E, which qualifies the article for deletion. Just read the sources listed below; the proof is in the pudding. North America1000 08:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is probably the strangest AfD I have ever take part in. It is one of a series of several dozen articles on LDS that North America has brought to deletion. LDS is unique in many ways, not least because the leadership of the church is largely in groups.  Stevens was part of the Presidency of Primary (LDS Church), an organization that works to gibe a Christian upbringing to over a million member children. The Presidency is a group of three. The media usually covers them as a group, media runs profiles  of all three in one article.  The Utah press is another oddness, the major papers in Salt Lake City areDeseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune.  Deseret is owned by the Mormon Church, but it is editorially independent. Deseret is not the Mormon version of the National Catholic Register or The Jewish Week.  It is a real newspaper covering everything big city dailies cover, except that both it and the Salt Lake Tribune continue to cover Church news with beat reporters in the way all American big city papers used to cover the dominant denomination in their region (Catholics in Chicago, Baptists in Montgomery,) but papers in other big cities no longer do. in other words, Leaders of LDS are public figures.  The oddest thing about this discussion is the intensity.  A leader of a large organization, who travels, speaks works for the organization and gets press in far flung presses, and ONGOING, INDEPTH in the organizations headquarters city. Whose essays and authored prayers (writing a significant prayer is like writing a significant essay,) are cited in other people's books and essays.  And who also was the principal in an event that had a national and international attention for a moment, a milestone that is now in the history books...   To me, the quesiton is, why editors are putting such intensity into deleting this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You've done everything but address my source analysis above, but that's okay, because you have already stated that you consider the sources to be usable to establish notability. I disagree, because per Wikipedia's standards, they really don't. Outside of the one event, there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources . My intentions are to be objective about the subject's notability; there are no feelings about it on my part (e.g. "such intensity", etc.), just objective analysis. You are applying your own standards of notability, but one sentence mentions and name checks (which are certainly not in-depth), along with quotations and primary sources just don't establish notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability . North America1000 11:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete excellent analysis of the refs. More effort has gone into sourcing this article than the other non notable LDS articles nominated recently - but it is just more of the same. Szzuk (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.