Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley G. Ellis


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Stanley G. Ellis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subject is non-notable because they do not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple of name checks, very minor passing mentions and primary source quotations from sermons. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America1000 07:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 水 07:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per WP:GNG found non-trivial coverage in the Deseret News, The subject is notable as an elder in the Church (LDS) and there is non-trivial coverage of the subject in that realm. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi : The source you provided is essentially a primary source, consisting mostly of quotations of a sermon the subject performed. The source provides virtually no biographical information about the subject, and is essentially a rehash of a sermon. Furthermore, multiple reliable sources that provide significant, independent (non-primary) coverage is required to establish notability, not just one source. North America1000 19:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The source has editorial oversight WP:RS. The subject of this article is a prominent figure in LDS. I admitted this subject is borderline which is why I said weak keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's also important to note that there is no presumed notability for LDS leaders or prominent figures. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The linked source is actually Church News, an official church publication that is included in Deseret News. You can tell because the byline says Church News. It is not an independent source. It is literally the church's coverage of itself. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bakazaka Thank you, Yes I called this subject a weak keep. I have seen this source used for articles previously. I will keep searching. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, Church News is an entirely primary source. Per the Church News article, the publication is "owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)". The source cannot be used to establish notability. North America1000 03:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per the discussion above, the sourcing appears to be primary, and nothing from WP:RS is present to suggest notability per WP:GNG. -- Kinu t/c 21:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with most of the rationale discussed above. One clarification: most/all of the sourcing is not independent of the subject, (and since no other sources exist, this fails WP:BASIC) but I disagree with the assertion that they are primary sources. The authors of, for example, the church news, would not be the subject of the article and therefore this would be a secondary source. However, since it is not an independent source, that is where it falls short. Rollidan (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't find any independent coverage of this person (although it's possible that there might be some in Brazilian sources). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 26 July 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.