Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F. Burton Howard

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

F. Burton Howard[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)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The 2007 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac source listed in the article presumably provides some coverage, but there's no link to readily assess the depth of coverage. Importantly, multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Several WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks and faint, fleeting minor mentions in independent reliable sources. Other than the almanac source, the remaining sources in the article are primary, and are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG lack of independent reliable sources covering the subject in great detail.--DBig Xrayᗙ 20:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, 3 refs in the article which fail WP:V, google not showing anything better. Szzuk (talk) 15:01, 27 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.