Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O. Leslie Stone


 * 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

O. Leslie Stone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:BEFORE source searching, this subject does not appear to have received an adequate depth of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. Sources found are short directory listings (e.g. ) and what appears to be short minor mentions (from snippet Google Books views). North America1000 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Delete Keep I see plenty of sources that indicate that this person could pass the WP:GNG, but User:Northamerica1000 makes a point by stating that the sources do not have enough depth. I have changed my decision to Delete as a result of the subject failing WP:RS. Keep per User:RebeccaGreen's excellent work. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC) EDIT: Yeah, keep per User:RebeccaGreen's typically excellent work on this thread. FOARP (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources out there that aren't of his employer, the Mormon Church. Trillfendi (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the reasons given by the others. No independent sources. Changing vote to keep per additions by RebeccaGreen. Rollidan (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm - I see a two-page long article in this book, and an apparent one-para article here, which appears to be an RS, but I can't read them as they're not accessible online. However, not being accessible online does not dismiss them sustaining notability. Additionally he is one of ~20-30 LDS churchmen to have received emeritus membership of the First Quorum but I'm not sure how big an award that is. I've got to be honest and say that on balance I think sourcing likely exists out there to sustain this guy's notability but, not having read it, I'm not sure how to vote. I guess this doesn't really help anyone but there you go. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have searched Newspapers.com excluding Utah (just to make sure that the newspapers were not affiliated with the LDS church), and I have added 11 references. Most of the significant coverage is from the Oakland Tribune, although there is also some from newspapers in Texas and Idaho. I have added more information from these sources. Other papers in Nevada, Montana, Idaho and Ohio provide supporting information. The articles date from 1961-1978, and cover periods before that too. I believe that he meets WP:GNG, or at least WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I am sorry to come so late to this AfD, but I do wish that editors nominating or !voting on AfDs for people active in pre-internet days would check contemporary news coverage (personally, I think that should be added to the requirements for WP:BEFORE). The sources in an article at the time of nomination are not a valid reason to delete. Perhaps FOARP, and maybe, would like to have a look at what I've added and see what they think. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * AmericanAir88(talk) 15:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I was trying to see if the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history had an artcle on him. I was unable to find my copy. If it does, being published 14 years after his death probably makes it indepdent of him. Either way, the sourcing the Rebecca Green dug up clearly shows that Stone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2019 (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.