Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Whitney Clayton

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 keep. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

L. Whitney Clayton

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

L. Whitney Clayton (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)

Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the recent source and content additions. Based on his participation in a temple groundbreaking [1], at religious conferences [2] [3], and the mention of leadership changes outside of LDS Church sources, such as [4]. While the article could use more cleanup, the individual gathers enough attention to pass WP:BASIC. Rollidan (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep We have enough 3rd party coverage to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 1 April 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.