Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean A. Stevens: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
respond
Line 55: Line 55:
:::*I suppose that it's a matter of perspective, but I agree with Andrew Davidson,. to me, she looks like a person who is notable by our standards because she was prominent as a leader of an important, mass membership organization. Her activities have been covered in the press over many years, and she also had a moment of national attention that continues to be revisited in books such as [https://books.google.com/books?id=TIcwDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&dq=%22jean+Stevens%22.+mormon+prayer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQwMP304veAhXqT98KHS42Dh4Q6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=%22jean%20Stevens%22.%20mormon%20prayer&f=false ''American Universities and the Birth of Modern Mormonism, 1867–1940''], University of North Carolina Press.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 15:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
:::*I suppose that it's a matter of perspective, but I agree with Andrew Davidson,. to me, she looks like a person who is notable by our standards because she was prominent as a leader of an important, mass membership organization. Her activities have been covered in the press over many years, and she also had a moment of national attention that continues to be revisited in books such as [https://books.google.com/books?id=TIcwDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&dq=%22jean+Stevens%22.+mormon+prayer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQwMP304veAhXqT98KHS42Dh4Q6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=%22jean%20Stevens%22.%20mormon%20prayer&f=false ''American Universities and the Birth of Modern Mormonism, 1867–1940''], University of North Carolina Press.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 15:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
::::*{{re|E.M.Gregory}} Perhaps you don't get it regarding [[WP:BLP1E]], but the book source you linked above ([https://books.google.com/books?id=TIcwDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA125 here]) simply provides a one-sentence passing mention about the subject saying the prayer at the event, the basis of this nomination. This is the only matter that the subject has received significant coverage about, nothing else, and that book source doesn't even provide that, just a passing mention. Your link actually furthers the stance that it's a WP:BLP1E matter. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size: x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 04:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
::::*{{re|E.M.Gregory}} Perhaps you don't get it regarding [[WP:BLP1E]], but the book source you linked above ([https://books.google.com/books?id=TIcwDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA125 here]) simply provides a one-sentence passing mention about the subject saying the prayer at the event, the basis of this nomination. This is the only matter that the subject has received significant coverage about, nothing else, and that book source doesn't even provide that, just a passing mention. Your link actually furthers the stance that it's a WP:BLP1E matter. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size: x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 04:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::*The fact that her prayer is mentioned in a number of books, scholarly, and journalistic sources years after the event establishes her as a person about whom others will become curious enough to look up in Wikipedia. Moreover, your repeated assertions that the only aspect of her career and life that have garnered SIGCOV is this prayer is inaccurate, showing a misunderstanding of what significant coverage is. Such coverage can, under our policies, be comprised of the cumulative total of coverage that is significant but brief in multiple [[WP:RS]] over many years, as is the case with this fairly well-sourced article. Also, [[WP:BLUDGEON]]ING an AfD discussion is disparaged.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 08:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:21, 17 October 2018

Jean A. Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E, as the subject has only received significant coverage for being the first female to say a prayer at the end of an LDS general conference. Other aspects of the subject in independent, reliable sources are limited to passing mentions and name checks. North America1000 17:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep. Thing is, she's not known "only in the context of a single event," she's not a "a low-profile individual," and her role in the prayer event Nom menitons was both "significant" and "substantial." This is not WP:BLP1E. She held a significant office within the LDS hierarchy before that prayer, and went on (together with her husband, Mormons head missions two by two,) to head the LDS mission in London, these activities are covered in WP:RSes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: Can you provide any independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage outside of the subject saying the prayer? I looked, and didn't find any. This is important, because subjects are not given a free pass for an article based upon their position in a religious organization; notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which does not appear to be available for this subject outside of the prayer coverage. North America1000 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sources 7,8, 11, 12 and 13 cover her present post, at LDS London. Deseret is semi-independent of the Church, but the Salt Lake Tribune is independent. This search [1] shows that her activities continue to attract some notice, albeit only a little. Let's see what other editors find. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Below is my analysis of those sources. North America1000 17:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • #7 was published by Church News, which is owned by the LDS church. This is a primary source, and does not serve to establish notability.
  • #8 provides two sentences about the subject, and reads like it is directly from a press release. In my view, this is not significant coverage.
  • #11 is about the prayer, and furthermore, only has one sentence about the subject. This is not significant coverage.
  • #12 has some coverage, but most of it is interview content, making it primary in nature.
  • #13 has one lone passing mention. This is not significant coverage.
Unsurprisingly, other independent newspapers in regions with large Mormon populations , like Gannett-owned The Spectrum (Utah), and the Idaho State Journal covered her activities as one of the leaders of the Primary in the years before the prayer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be useful if the people arguing to keep would be more specific about which sources they are putting forth, and how they meet policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Andrew mentioned this ongoing AFD of an article on "a pioneering women" on the WIR talkpage here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject has only received significant coverage for one matter, saying a prayer, that's it. WP:BLP1E applies entirely, regardless of the gender of the subject, which has no bearing on notability whatsoever. Notice the source review above regarding coverage the subject has received for other matters; this is not significant coverage at all. North America1000 23:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I came here solely because I noticed Andrew's somewhat canvassy message on WIR and felt I should post a notification about that message here, but now looking at the content of Andrew's !vote I gotta say I agree with NA1000: standard operating procedure when we don't have an article on the sole event for which BLP1Es are notable is to either delete the biographical article and maybe create an article on the event in its place, or to retitle and rewrite the article into a completely different article, which is de facto deletion. Furthermore, if the idea is that BLP1E doesn't apply because we don't have an article on the event and so this page shouldn't be deleted or redirected but rather retitled and refocused, then WIR is irrelevant because the goal of not having a standalone article on this woman's biography is the same. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She was one of the three top leaders of an international organization with millions of members. She is not notable just for one event contrary to the claims of some here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it does not appear that the subject has received any significant coverage for said leadership roles. All the significant coverage is for one event, saying one prayer. Religious leaders do not get a free pass for a Wikipedia article, in part because no guideline or policy exists that provides presumed notability for said subjects. North America1000 07:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more re-list as this is a BLP. A number of Keep !votes are pointing out that "there are sources", some more meat on the bones would possibly be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Well, three of the keep !votes above do not address the very core basis of the nomination, that this is a WP:BLP1E situation whereby the subject is notable only for one event. One keep !vote states one's own made-up rules regarding BLP1E, erroneously stating that WP:BLP1E is somehow not applicable unless an event article already exists. Additionally, this nomination is not based upon WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, but the three mentioned !votes above are addressing the nomination as though it is (e.g. "there are sources"). North America1000 13:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E states cleary that three conditions must be satisfied for it to be applicable. These conditions are not satisfied because the subject was not a low profile person; she was a prominent person in the church. Her role in the event was substantial and we don't have a separate article for it to merge to. Therefore, per WP:BLP1E, we should retain this article to record both the event and its primary instigator, just like we record other pioneering women. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: Perhaps you don't get it regarding WP:BLP1E, but the book source you linked above (here) simply provides a one-sentence passing mention about the subject saying the prayer at the event, the basis of this nomination. This is the only matter that the subject has received significant coverage about, nothing else, and that book source doesn't even provide that, just a passing mention. Your link actually furthers the stance that it's a WP:BLP1E matter. North America1000 04:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that her prayer is mentioned in a number of books, scholarly, and journalistic sources years after the event establishes her as a person about whom others will become curious enough to look up in Wikipedia. Moreover, your repeated assertions that the only aspect of her career and life that have garnered SIGCOV is this prayer is inaccurate, showing a misunderstanding of what significant coverage is. Such coverage can, under our policies, be comprised of the cumulative total of coverage that is significant but brief in multiple WP:RS over many years, as is the case with this fairly well-sourced article. Also, WP:BLUDGEONING an AfD discussion is disparaged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]