Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate M. Barker

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate M. Barker

[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)

As per source searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC. Finding no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and virtually no coverage at all in said sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article author) Members of the general relief society are clearly notable enough to keep their articles. In the event this does not win concensus at a minimum the article should ve merged with the article on her notable husband.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Every LDS woman who is over 18 or married or has a child is technically a member of the Relief Society, so saying that membership is a basis for notability strains credulity. Bakazaka (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What I meant is members of the general relief society presidency. I tire of the itentionally rude natirwe of so much of these comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding "Members of the general relief society are clearly notable enough", there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on Wikipedia. The !vote appears to be opinion-based, rather than based upon Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Can you provide just two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject? Said necessary sources do not appear to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why should I. When I provide more than two ideependent sources you then find ways to move the rules in some other way as we saw in the discussion on Benjamin de Hoyos.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well then, don't; no rule changing here, or there, or anywhere by me. Notability for such subjects simply requires two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage, that's it. If said sources don't exist, then the subject is just not notable as per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent coverage independent of the religious organization she served. As Northamerica1000 notes correctly, notability is not presumed for religious subjects. The rules do not move: they've been at WP:BIO this whole time. This article does not meet the burden laid out there. Lagrange 613 10:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a pity as these are well constructed articles, however there is nothing outside of LDS Church sources. More appropriate for a seperate LDS Church Wiki? Britishfinance (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.