Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sybil Gibson Higley (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 07:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sybil Gibson Higley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete lack of notability for encyclopedic purposes. Notability for Wikipedia article subjects is determined based on significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The references here are neither reliable nor significant to anyone other than family members and members of the LDS church. Other than two obituaries, there is no newsprint coverage. The genealogical books listed in the reference titled "Books" are of interest only to genealogists, family members, ancestors. One reference link goes to a primary source cemetery records website for a county in the state of Oregon. Notability has not been established, is unlikely to ever be established, and the article is completely lacking in encyclopedic value. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are entirely primary, and the only ones with significant coverage are paid obituaries. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To begin with, I question how anyone could argue that Higley is notable to members of the LDS Church. There are 4,600 Family History Centers. They exist in 126 countries. There are also addistional ones that have closed, I can't place the exact number, but it is probably a few hundred. Some centers only have two staff members. I am a Latter-day Saint, whose parents were co-directors of one center and spent 7 years as a staff member at another one. The Family History Center director is not even a major figure to the members of a stake, numbering on average about 3,500 people. Although some Family History Centers have primarily users who are from other faiths, the center director would not neccesarily even be known to many of those people. In most cases broad policy decisions on family history centers, including number of staff, hours of operation, and even weather to close them is made by ward and stake leaders, not the director of the center. There are people who have managed to make themselves impactful to the Latter-day Saint community through studies of family history, such as some people mentions in Hearts Turned to the Fathers: A History of the Geneological Society of Utah, 1894-1994, Higley is not one of them. Also, if we examine her books they are extremely non-impactful. They are not widely of interest to geneologists. This would go either to books written on general themes of geneology, such as "How to find sources on your New England ancestors" or "Finding our Guyanese cousins: How to link to your Rhode Island ancestors other children they had while on shore leave during trading voyages to the Caribbean. The other type of book is things like the Barbour Collection or The Great Migration to New England. These are huge collections of records that are then published and make it easy to find your ancestors information. Being held by the Family History Library in Salt Lake City is not a demonstration of anything. The Family History Library aims to be a very large holder of lots of information. I have to admit this is one of the cases of a person who falls the furthest from any notability criteria I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John Pack Lambert. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 17 March 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.