Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer H. Osborn


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Spencer H. Osborn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC:
 * The 2007 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac listed in the article presumably provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one.
 * The remaining sources in the article are primary or unreliable, which do not establish notability.
 * WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks and a couple of faint passing mentions in rs. North America1000 08:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as subject does not meet WP:GNG, and consensus is that LDS leaders are not presumed notable (see discussions in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). Sources in article are not independent (Liahona, Ensign, and an almanac branded as Deseret News but actually assembled by Church News staff) or not reliable ("Grampa Bill"). Search finds passing mentions in routine coverage of church announcements and events, and some quotes without any additional analysis. It doesn't add up to significant coverage of the subject. Open to alternatives if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 06:10, 21 November 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.