Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda S. Reeves (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. clpo13(talk) 20:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Linda S. Reeves
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non-notable subject that continues to fail WP:BASIC. Five of the sources in the article are primary, which do not qualify notability, and the remaining two do not consist of significant coverage: Searches for independent, reliable sources are providing no better to qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 04:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – Consists of five very short sentences about the subject.
 * – has a name check and three short sentences.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Aside from the fact that community consensus is clear that LDS leaders have to pass WP:GNG, and that various church publications/PR references do not count toward notability (e.g. Church Newsroom, lds.org, Liahona, see WP:IIS) it's remarkable that this subject doesn't even get much coverage in church sources. One of the church sources cited in the article does not even mention the subject at all. Coverage in secondary sources is not significant, being routine announcements, quotes, and reprints of official church PR blurbs and press releases (this is obvious when the newspaper database also contains the church press releases for comparison). It's not significant coverage of this subject in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Subject does not pass WP:GNG. The subject's corporate bio, which is what this article is, can be found at the LDS website without Wikipedia's help. Bakazaka (talk) 22:18, 22 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.