Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Utah

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Utah. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Utah|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Utah. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cachewatch


Utah

Josh Drean

Josh Drean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excluding primary sources and unreliable sources, there doesn't seem to be anything that meets GNG or NAUTHOR. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty much an advertisement that fails GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recursion Pharmaceuticals

Recursion Pharmaceuticals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources and reads more like a promotional piece than a neutral encyclopedia entry. If most of the content comes from press releases or affiliated sources, OatPancake (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Oil

Holiday Oil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the company's regional presence, it lacks coverage from multiple reliable sources Hopkinkse (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mortensen

Kurt Mortensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP. Multiple redlinks, relies on a single source. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Literature. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep you know its bad when the subject is "best known" for a book that isn't notable enough for its own page that combined with the lack of sources makes me have to vote delete UPDATE: i have changed my vote to keep as sources have now been presented Scooby453w (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of of WP:SIGCOV, it needs more sources covering him. LemonberryPie (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A page cannot rely on one source and expect to survive. If more sources can be found to support notability and bolster the article, that is a different conversation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I am usually very suspicious of articles about this kind of business/self-help author, the reviews for his books are well past the threshold for WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews of Maximum Influence in the Journal of Consumer Marketing, the Roanoke Times, the Globe and Mail and the Miami Herald. Reviews of Persuasion IQ in Publishers Weekly (and [6] for the audiobook), the Agent's Sales Journal, Career Planning and Adult Development, AORN Journal and the Journal of School Public Relations. Reviews of The Laws of Charisma in Publishers Weekly, Life Insurance Selling and the Journal of School Public Relations. MCE89 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources essentially encourage separate articles for his books, As PARAKANYAA said, his books are notable, although I disagree that business-type books are better served by an author page. Especially with the amount of sources about the books rather than the author, Kurt.
    I'd encourage the creation of articles for their books, but continue with the deletion of this page as it isn't notable on its own despite WP:NAUTHOR, since the article fails WP:BLP more significantly than NAUTHOR. It doesn't seem to have been written responsibly. It relies on a source from a decade & a half ago and is a relatively unknown person, among other reasoning. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really know what you mean by "fails WP:BLP"? BLP isn't a notability guideline — the relevant notability guideline here is WP:NAUTHOR, which says that a person who has created aa significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple reviews is themselves notable, even if that person hasn't been the subject of secondary biographical coverage. It is very common for articles about authors to be based on reviews of their books. And I'm happy to add the above reviews to the article as sources whenever I get a chance. MCE89 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I concede there. But the above points still stand, and until those sources are added & attributed properly and the article expanded (if those sources are secondary and verifiable, which may not be the case) I believe deletion is still viable. By "fails WP:BLP", I meant it did not meet the content policy for having high quality articles, as stated in its summary it is necessary to take "particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" NikolaiVektovich (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So to clarify, you do agree that this person meets NAUTHOR and are arguing for deletion based on the following reasons at this point:
    • The article is poorly written.
    • The sources in AfD have not been placed in the article.
    • The article is of start/stub class length.
    Offhand only one of those is a valid reason for deletion. Being a short article isn't in and of itself a reason for deletion. An article can be an eternal stub and still be considered worthy of an article - it only has to pass notability requirements. Now a very short article can sometimes be merged into another, if there is an appropriate parent article, but this isn't the case here. As far as the sourcing issue goes, sourcing does not have to be present in the article to establish notability. It should absolutely be added, yes, but the sourcing only has to exist and be of suitable quality and type to establish notability.
    Now the quality argument can be used as an argument for deletion, but this is only meant to be used in very extreme cases, where the article has so many issues that it would be easier to just delete it all and start fresh. These issues are typically things like promotional content and copyright violation, as well as a history of sockpuppetry. This article does need editing, but I wouldn't say that it's so problematic that it needs to be wiped clean from Wikipedia. It just needs some pruning. I also don't see an issue with copyvio and the article doesn't seem to have any issues with sockpuppetry either.
    I get where you're coming from with this, but this is one where the author meets notability guidelines and cleaning up the article isn't a hugely gargantuan task. He's probably always going to be a stub article since he's not overwhelmingly notable, but like I said above, being an eternal stub or start class article doesn't mean that something can't also be notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thank you all for the insight, I'll have to rethink it the next time I mark something for deletion. Seeing that new sources have been attributed and the article largely improved to stub status, Seeing the consensus shift, I request for this discussion to close early as per WP:SNOW & Wikipedia:Deletion_process#SNOW, unless we include the vague delete votes that don't contribute to consensus significantly. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry i haven't changed my vote yet. I was engaging in other afd discussions Scooby453w (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCE89... that his books don't have articles yet does not mean they aren't notable. Business type books especially are better served by an author page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly agree with that. Articles for those are often kind of undersourced (even if they pass NBOOK) and are particularly prone to puffery. Honestly, a lot of times authors in this realm of things tend to kind of write about the same topics, but from different angles, so sometimes all that is needed is a general overview of what the author writes about. I also think that having an author page often discourages people from writing the individual book pages (and same for series pages and individual entries). People are sometimes just looking to see if it's on here and when it's not, that's when we sometimes get people coming on to create articles - sometimes with good intent, sometimes to promote. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The author passes notability guidelines as his works have been covered in multiple, independent, and secondary reliable sources. He'll never be anyone super mainstream, but he's received enough attention to pass NAUTHOR. Also, as stated above I think that having a page for him would be best here, as opposed to ones for his books. We can have a general overview and cover it all well enough there, as opposed to 2-3 individual and lackluster (but still passing NBOOK) entries. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per ROTP and MCE, meets NAUTHOR Eddie891 Talk Work 06:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Stokes

AfDs for this article:
Catherine Stokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Most cited sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT, a fact overlooked in the 2019 deletion discussion. Sources establishing notability consist of two articles from the Deseret News (Stokes sat on their editorial board, and one of the articles is announcing that fact), two human-interest stories from the Salt Lake Tribune (at the time they were written, party to a Joint Operating Agreement with the Deseret News [[7]] and operating out of the same building), and two interview transcripts on Mormon-themed blogs (possibly independent, but hardly WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV). Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree to your bias assessment of independent sources. While it is true the Deseret News should not be considered independent for this subject, the Salt Lake Tribune is a separate legal entity and there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that maintain its independent status. "Mormon-themed blogs" are also not an exclusionary source just as "baseball-themed blogs" would not be exclusionary to create interviews independent of Major League Baseball. I agree completely in efforts to require independent sourcing, but for a pioneering woman of color this article meets the requirements--and has already been reviewed as such in the past. Fullrabb (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have been working on other articles at AfD, I did find some coverage in digitised newspapers from several states (ie not just LDS-owned publications and not just where she lived) - I'll add it and see if she meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added the sources and info I am able to access online (there are others, but I either don't have access or have reached my limit in those titles on Google Books). I believe that she at least meets WP:BASIC, with coverage in books published by Oxford University Press, University of Illinois Press, Brigham Young University Press, the Chicago Tribune and other newspapers and journals. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe the Chicago Tribune sources you cite constitute in-depth coverage of the subject (as I stated I looked). The few articles are far closer to the three blind mice (quotes in her capacity as a mid-level IDPH employee, reaction to local LDS event) than the IBM book per example provided in "significant coverage" in WP:GNG. The other sources do make a strong case. Please note those were not in the article at the time of my vote. --Mpen320 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the sources found by Rebecca which turns this poor article into a passable one Scooby453w (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Freeman (Mormon)

Joseph Freeman (Mormon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. This person does not appear to be notable except in connection with the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood and the content of this article should therefore be merged into that one. Jbt89 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist in hopes of generating some further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is as notable as any "member of a discriminated against group that was the first to do something", which we have a lot of on Wikipedia. Also there is a lot of additional, verified, information other than him becoming the first black person to receive the Melchizedek priesthood. Masktapeisawesome (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Other than being the first one from a significant group, there is no significant notability. Equivalence is as pointed out by Anonrfjwhuikdzz/mentioned again by Bearian. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG. There was nationwide newspaper coverage of him when he became the first Black Mormon priest in 1978, and more coverage in 1979, 1988 and 2003 (including updated bio info), as well as a para and a bit in the book Black and Mormon [8] (pages 3 and 5). I'll try to find time to add sources to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen any improvement for four weeks. Ping me if you add sources and think this is HEY-worthy. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Utah&oldid=1288923779"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Utah, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.