Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine L. Jack

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine L. Jack[edit]

[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)

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; only very brief quotations and name checks. The article is entirely dependent upon primary sources, which do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep borderline notability. Wikipedia has an article for each and every microrabbi. Leadership of other religions are just as notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you basing notability upon? There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. Can you provide just two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject? This is the bare minimum to establish notability for such subjects, per Wikipedia's guidelines such as WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I have to say that I find it ridiculous that a sportsman who played for ten minutes during one game in their career is considered notable, or who competed at the Olympics - and before anyone says this is impressive, let me remind you of Eddie the Eagle and Eric Moussambani - while they are sufficiently notable on their own merit for Wikipedia Articles, that doesn't mean that people who are not quite so bad as them are too. In any case, accomplishing something impressive is not criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, otherwise we would have articles on most people with a PhD. With that said, under the current criteria this ladies position in the LDS is insufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia, despite being more notable than many included but minor athletes, and thus my vote, in line with current policy. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Keep, based on newly provided sources. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have identified multiple additional sources. Jill Mulvay Derr and others Women of the Covenant: The Story of the Relief Society provides significant information, as does Canadian Mormons and Women at the Pulpit. That is 3 books with significant mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
Keep Of the three books named above, there is significant coverage in the two books I can see on Google Books, which is the bare minimum needed, and I will WP:AGF that the third also has SIGCOV. Also, as well as information about roles and the dates at which the subject assumed them, etc, there is information about changes in policy and practice during the subject's leadership, so it is clear that there are achievements she is notable for, not just roles she held.

It is not true to say that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia - they may be essays rather than guidelines, but in my observation, WP:NBISHOP and WP:BISHOPS are generally followed at AfDs. WP:RELIG/N also notes that "Many international religions have their own or strongly affiliated publishing houses. This makes determining independence difficult at times." Two Protestant and two Catholic publications/publishers are identified as "considered independent" (though it doesn't say how), but it doesn't specifically identify any which are considered not independent. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:15, 29 January 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.