Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles A. Didier

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. bd2412 T 04:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Didier[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)

Per WP:BEFORE searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC. Searches are only providing name checks and faint passing mentions in independent, reliable sources. The entire article is reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in both the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History and The Religious Studies Center article. There is clearly enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. As such, it is not usable to establish notability. The BYU Religious Studies Center article has two paragraphs about the subject. An important matter is that multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There seems to be an infestation of such articles in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Religious Studies Center link that the above editor claims as coverage is the author bio for an article by the subject published by the Religious Studies Center, not independent coverage about the subject. Other sources in the article are not independent (Ensign, Encyclopedia) or not reliable ("Grampa Bill"). The Encyclopedia of LDS History source is probably fine for factual information about the subject, but not sufficiently independent to count toward general notability of an LDS church leader (see WP:IIS). Otherwise search finds passing mentions and quotes in religious material, brief mentions in routine coverage of church announcements, and occasional quotes reproduced without analysis. It does not add up to significant coverage of this subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Open to alternatives if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 03:05, 1 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.