Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan F. Packer

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allan F. Packer[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)

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations and sermons from the subject (which are primary sources), fleeting passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing the independent reliable source coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject gets some passing mentions and routine coverage of ceremonial functions, and also gets mentioned in passing (or with short quotes) in articles that are actually about his more-famous father. But it does not add up to WP:SIGCOV of this subject in particular, the sources in the article are not independent per WP:IIS and therefore do not count toward notability, and notability is not inherited (at least on Wikipedia). The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a promotional article with few refs that appear to be independent of the subject, google showing only local news reports. Szzuk (talk) 17:48, 20 October 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.