Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer V. Jones

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. No-one has rebutted the deletion rationale. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer V. Jones

[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)

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. The Deseret Morning News 2008 Church Almanac source in the article presumably provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Several WP:BEFORE source searches are only providing name checks such as this (in the article) and this, and almost nothing else. The remaining sources in the article are primary or unreliable, which are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. Szzuk (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - High level LDS church functionary. High enough? Not sure. Sourcing is very, very borderline. Carrite (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments above. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the above !vote:

It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
Its thesis is utterly unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about Spencer V. Jones, not some other subject.
Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2018 (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.