Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ellen W. Smoot


 * 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Mary Ellen W. Smoot

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources has been found, as per WP:BEFORE searches. The sources in the article are all primary, and do not serve to establish notability. North America1000 21:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The general presidents of the auxiliaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are all clearly default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article based upon the concept of presumed notability, because no guideline or policy exists to provide this accommodation. As such, multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability. North America1000 03:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Furthermore, a previous discussion on the Notability (people) talk page in 2016, located here, regarding the notion of LDS church and other religious organization leaders being granted presumed notability on Wikipedia was widely opposed, with a consensus to not add a stipulation regarding said presumption of notability to the guideline page. Sorry, but the !vote above is rooted entirely in personal opinion, not Wikipedia guidelines or policies. North America1000 05:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Relief Society. Search does not find significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources (here emphasizing WP:IIS), so fails WP:BASIC. There does not seem to be another path to notability under other Wikipedia policies. The subject's claim to notability relates to role in the Relief Society. Clearly the Relief Society is a notable organization, but individuals do not inherit notability from organizations (WP:INHERITORG). So redirecting to the demonstrably notable organization makes sense. Bakazaka (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of General Presidencies of the Relief Society. I also can't find sources to cover WP:GNG. I'm a little surprised by that, given her role, but the notability guidelines are what they are. The correct redirect target is List of General Presidencies of the Relief Society rather than Relief Society, in my opinion, but that list has no references at all so far, so references from Mary Ellen W. Smoot should be copied there first (no new information, so not a merge-proper). &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 20:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I notified the Wikipedia project on the Latter Day Saint movement of this deletion nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:HEY I sourced it. I suspect that editors above are having trouble finding sources because she was active in the 1990s, and a few newspapers from back then show up in searches. I'm sourcing this now, using Proquest news archive, and finding INDEPTH coverage of her life and career, especially in the Salt Lake Tribune but also in some papers in other regions.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding these sources to the article. The Chicago Tribune source is a brief quote, not in-depth coverage (see for yourself at the non-paywalled link ). The Spokesman Review source is mostly interview material (WP:PRIMARY) plus description of the Relief Society. The SLTrib multiple sources count as one source for notability purposes (WP:SIGCOV). Taken as a whole they still don't add up to significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent sources, based on Wikipedia policy. They do reinforce that a redirect to one of the Relief Society articles makes sense. There are many passing mentions and single quotes, but in the context of articles mostly about the Relief Society. Bakazaka (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added some more coverage from non-Utah sources. What has not been done at this point is to expand the article with the INDEPTH coverage of the her life and career extending over many years in the Salt Lake Tribune.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that, because she headed an organization with over 4 million members for a decade and a half, there are hits in books and scholar, but only editors with access to very good new archives will find the trove of INDEPTH sourcing published over the years by the Salt Lake Tribune. Searching sltrib.com brings up very little, but proquest searches on versions of her name, or on Smoot + "relief Society" brings up a great many.  Here is a small sample of the INDEPTH coverage that ran in the Tribune:
 * LDS Relief Society Leader: World Awaits Our Example; Relief Society Leader: Women Can Alter World, 28 Sep 1997: B.1.
 * 3 Diverse Members of Mormon Church's Relief Society Presidency Share Same Goal: Strengthening Their Sisters; Relief Society Leaders Aim To Build Sisters, 27 Sep 1997: C.1.
 * Be Steadfast Amid Turmoil, LDS Women Are Admonished, 30 Sep 2001
 * LDS Prominent at Pro-Family Talks, 16 Nov 1999: A7.
 * Women See A Changing Of Guard; Relief Society Gets Leadership Makeover, 06 Apr 1997: A.7.
 * Stand Firm, Mormon Women Told; Relief Society members urged to renew convictions amid decaying morality, 27 Sep 1998
 * New Mission for 'Spirit Daughters of God', 26 Sep 1999: B1.
 * and more similar, in addition, of course, to scores of quoted remarks at conferences and in articles on topics llke How Do LDS Women in U.S. Live Their Lives? 05 Oct 2002, or Religions Set Family Agenda, 22 Nov 1999: A1.,  plus, of course, dozens of name checks of the type: Party Guest List Included Religious and Utah Notables, 24 June 2000.  Notice, however, that 4.4 million women belonged to the organization she ran, and when, for example she introduced a new mission statement for the Relief Society, 5,000 women came to here her read it in public at the Temple Square. We sometimes need to remind ourselves that religious organizations of which we have never heard can have mass memberships and draw WP:SIGCOV even in the mainstream press (albeit in flyover country.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. What we're seeing here is that religious organizations can draw WP:SIGCOV. The sources support notability for the Relief Society. But that notability is not inherited by individual members (WP:INHERITORG). Bakazaka (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks again to E.M.Gregory for adding references to the article. But again, sources are mostly passing mentions and single quotes, which can be verified by those with ProQuest access. Here are some examples:
 * Cobourg Daily Star article is 500 words or so about the Relief Society and its anniversary. In the entire article, here is Smoot's coverage: "Today the 13th president, Mary Ellen Smoot, places emphasis on absorbing insight and inspiration from other women headed in the same direction. She encourages women to "stop seeking out the storms and enjoy more fully the sunlight."
 * Deseret News article is almost 900 words about a community's 100 year anniversary and its history. In the entire article, here is Smoot's coverage: "The printing of the wonderfully illustrated book culminated months of intense work by a committee headed by Sister Mary Ellen Smoot, former LDS Relief Society general president, and Lloyd B. Carr."
 * SLTrib 2015 article is over 1000 words about the World Congress of Families. In the entire article, here is Smoot's coverage: "Wilkins, Hafen and then-Relief Society General President Mary Ellen Smoot and then-Young Women President General Margaret Nadauld all gave major speeches at the meeting."
 * Telegram & Gazette article is 900 words about the Relief Society's quilt project. In the entire article, here is Smoot's coverage: "The General Relief Society's president, Mary Ellen Smoot of Salt Lake City, said about 13,000 quilts have been collected by the Humanitarian Center of the church in Utah. Smoot said that men and children are also contributing their efforts for the project."
 * It goes on like that. It's not significant coverage. This is an extremely similar pattern to corporate officers or spokespeople who are quoted or mentioned on behalf of their company. They're not notable on their own, and do not inherit notability from the organization (WP:INHERITORG). So, again, the sources support a redirect to the entity that is actually notable, in this case to one of the Relief Society articles. Bakazaka (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're cherry picking by ignoring the articles from the late 90s in the Tribune, and by eliding, for example, the other article that I added about the quilt project, or the context, which is that the quilt project articles were used to support a brief text in a paragraph about her initiatives as leader of a large organization. I hope other editors take a look at the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, all of the sources in the SLTrib count as one for purposes of determining significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV), if we're following Wikipedia policy. While the sources listed are behind paywalls for many editors, hopefully the transparency about actual content above, along with the non-paywall link provided to the Chicago Tribune reference, will help. And again, there's no question that the articles are mostly about the Relief Society, which is why a redirect makes the most sense. Bakazaka (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say that several articles are primarily about Smoot, but what is beyond doubt is that the sourcing is more than sufficient to meet WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Relief Society definitely passes WP:BASIC, agreed. But, as pointed out above, the articles that are primarily about Smoot don't count as multiple, independent, secondary sources for establishing notability, and articles that have been added as independent secondary sources are not about Smoot, also shown above. Bakazaka (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Bakazaka's idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:SIGCOV notwithstanding, coverage of a subject does not have to be the primary topic of an article for the coverage to be deemed significant and supportive of notability. Notability can be established cumulatively, and often is established by use WP:RS coverage embedded in articles and chapters that primarily address a different topic.  In the matter of Mary Ellen Wood Smoot, we  have INDEPTH news coverage in WP:RS articles that are devoted to her leadership role in the LDS Church; (we also have a bio chapter in a book, albeit it is a book of single chapter biographies of LDS figures published by an LDS publisher - and therefore not counted towards notability;) and we have many articles in WP:RS media to which aspects of her life and/or work can be reliably sourced.  In addition to publications affiliated with the Church, aspects of her life and career now in the article includes material published by  the Salt Lake Tribune, the Standard-Examiner,  The Spokesman-Review,  Cobourg Daily Star, and the Telegram & Gazette in addition to Deseret News which is inter-linked with the Church, although it is editorially independent, and the Church publication, Ensign (LDS magazine), which does not count towards establishing notability. But do note that notable positions held also support notability, and she headed a large organization from 1997 through 2002.  There is more than enough sourcing now in the article to meet WP:BASIC, although, of course, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and more can be added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the actual content of the sources cited to support notability in the numerous revisions, perhaps a more appropriate essay would be WP:REFBOMB? Bakazaka (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The sheer number of these articles is enough to show notability. The Salt Lake Tribune is not one source if it writes multiple articles on the subject. That said, I also question the disqualifying of the bio chapter. A book is a book, and should not be swept aside based on who its publisher is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 15 August 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.