Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean A. Stevens

Jean A. Stevens

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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]

Keep There is widespread and significant coverage of her in multiple indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Said coverage, however, is all about the subject stating a prayer. This remains a WP:BLP1E situation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, umm........you of all people find her sufficiently notable? ∯WBG^converse 05:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing enough sources to pass GNG, even though some are trivial and it is a borderline case of notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: Are the sources you mention all about the WP:BLP1E matter of saying a prayer, or has the subject received significant coverage about other matters? I haven't seen any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about the latter yet. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 27 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]

Delete, I concur with Northamerica1000's analysis of the (lack of) significance of the sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 5 October 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]

Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply because there is no separate article about the event. And even if there was, the appropriate action would be merger not deletion. The subject is notable for her milestone achievement which is highlighted in additional sources such as Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings. It's amazing that, after the recent fuss about Donna Strickland we still have attempts to delete content about pioneering women. Andrew D. (talk) 19:20, 6 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 (聖やや) 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 (聖やや) 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]

Delete--Per NA1000.∯WBG^converse 05:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seem to be plenty of sources out there to use in order to expand the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I guess that you do not need to be pointed out that you need to provide specific sources? ∯WBG^converse 18:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333: Also, your !vote does not address the WP:BLP1E matter at all, which is the entire basis of the nomination. The only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that appears to exist is about the subject saying one prayer at one event. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This appears to be a textbook case for BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The lede says it all, she's famous for one prayer at an event. Nothing else comes close to notability. Ifnord (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primary (LDS Church)#Chronology of the general presidency of the Primary, the office she holds and one of the only articles to mention her name. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, since subject distinctly lacks verifiable notability and is (little) known for saying a prayer. -The Gnome (talk) 09:48, 15 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]

See Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, where a low profile individual is defined in part as a subject who "Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group, such as a professional or religious organization. The LDS Church is a religious organization. Clearly a low profile subject per Wikipedia's standards. WP:BLP1E continues to be clearly applicable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with NA and stand by my Delete. This is a textbook example of BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 American Universities and the Birth of Modern Mormonism, 1867–1940, University of North Carolina Press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 16 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]

I provided a source analysis of the refs you provided above in the discussion. Primary sources and passing mentions do not create notability outside of the one event, in my opinion. Furthermore, well-reasoned, calm debate is never "bludgeoning" the process. Thanks for your reply regarding my query, and we will have to agree to disagree. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Stevens does not qualify as WP:BLP1E. To do so, she would have to meet "each of three conditions":

1.) "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Patently untrue since WP:RS covered her before and after the event in other contexts.
2.) " remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" - she became a public figure whose activities were covered in the press in 2010 when she became what National Public Radio described (in an article about the 2013 prayer,) as "a high-ranking leader in Primary, an educational arm facilitating religious instruction for children. Coverage of her pre-prayer activities in WP:RS is on the page.
3.) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." obviously does not describe this case.

I urge editors to look at the sources on the page. Stevens is not a BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this woman is notable on her own. Perhaps a new article, Church of the Latter Day Saints General Conference Prayer 2013? There seems to be some interest in this topic. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]