Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia T. Holland


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Go   Phightins  !  02:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Patricia T. Holland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN. Doesn't appear to be anything non-LDS about her; and her only claim to notability is that she was married to the head honcho at BYU. PROD declined by creator, claiming that "Being a member of the Young Women General Presidency makes her notable". Sorry, it doesn't, there is no notability guideline that says that; there isn't even an article on the Young Women General Presidency. Having references that aren't LDS-related make something notable p  b  p  18:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, the Deseret News doesn't count as a verifiable source, as it's LDS-related p  b  p  18:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Her notability is from her having been a member of the Young Women General Presidency. That has been accepted as a notable level of office.  Her notability is not connected to her husbnad, it is connected with her own office holding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BURDEN, please provide evidence that that office is notable. There is no specific notability guideline saying so.  There are no references in the article to indicate notability.  Therefore, she isn't notable  p  b  p  18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are references in the article. The sources are not in anyway controlled by Holland.  She did not create them.  She had no direct control over their creation.  Your disallowing of a respected newspaper being used as a source, or a magazine being used as a source because of their ownership is not really logical.  These sources were not created by Holland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read Third-party sources. According to the page, "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered"  An LDS official is not independent of the LDS church, therefore said official isn't independent of the LDS church's websites or publications, either  p  b  p  20:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Deseret News is not an LDS Church publication. The corporation is owned by a company that's owned by the church, but the church doesn't control what they write. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject is definitely notable, although the article is poorly sourced. Still, the article should be improved rather than deleted. I don't see any problems with using the Deseret News as a source. It's an established newspaper, and there are no controversial claims being made where there may be a conflict of interest. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Also, the nominator's statement that "her only claim to notability is that she was married to the head honcho at BYU", that is not quite accurate. Yes, her husband is a former BYU president, but he is also an LDS Apostle, basically the top position in the LDS Church (there are only 15). The young women general presidency is also notable (also one of the highest positions in the church). ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Third-party sources supports the sourcing, and she seems notable on her own in any event. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the person is clearly notable and the nom's insistence on non-LDS sources is bizarre. Oculi (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What's so "bizarre" about it? Please read WP:V and WP:RELIABLESOURCE.  Just as you don't source an article about an executive from his company's website, you don't source an article on a church official from the church's website  p  b  p  16:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have made the same argument in this AfD and it didn't work very well there either. As has been pointed out many times, Deseret News is not a church publication. Also, if a company's website had uncontroversial biographical information on their executives (education, past work experience, tenure, etc.) I would be perfectly happy using that as a supplementary source. Not that that has anything to do with this AfD. Holland is not and never was an executive of the Deseret Newspaper. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, the reason that those were kept is that non-LDS church sources were found for them. And it appears that there is somewhat of a double standard here...if this was an artist or game designer who was only sourced by his game's website, regardless of how notable his game was, the article would still be deleted.  I stand by my assertion that these need non-LDS sources to pass WP:V and WP:RELIABLESOURCE  p  b  p  17:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on the older AfDs. The problem with your game designer example is that this article is not sourced to a self-published website, and the subject of this article had little or no input on what was published. Deseret News is a major newspaper. Show me the sentence in WP:V or WP:RS that says major newspapers should be ignored if they are somehow affiliated with the subject. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (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.