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 Userfy. Consensus to delete, however, I'm going to userfy for User:Nihonjoe as there have been no objections to this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Hunter Adams[edit]

Linda Hunter Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:PROF, WP:GNG or any other part of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no claim in the article that would be at all likely to lead to a pass of WP:PROF, so any possible notability would be based on WP:GNG, which I haven't checked yet. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Quick Yahoo! search yields only WP:ROUTINE coverage; fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG pbp 18:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Her role as head of the Association of Mormon Letters is almost enough to pass the guildeines for academics, but not quite there. We have scattered coverage, both in multiple publications taking note of her death, and the high beam search will show scattered coverage from the Deseret News. However 2 of those sources are just 1 that amounts to a "person on the street" quote because she was at the event the article was on, and another where she is just mentioned in passing as a source of something mentioned in passing in the article. The coverage of her work with the Sons of the Utah Pioneers does come to be extensive, but we only have one source on it, and would really want multiple sources. Beyond this I can find lots of references to her having done work editing, but nothing at a level that seems to truly rise to the level of notability. With the Joseph Smith Papers Project for example she was an editor, but not one of the top three overall editors, who I believe are all notable, but that is established in large part because of their work with other material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Combining the WP:PROF criteria with GNG, we have someone who has done substantial academic work but also work with non-profit organizations (e.g. Sons of the Utah Pioneers). Taken in total, this meets WP:BASIC as we have multiple sources from independent, third party publications. As in other discussions, just because a person may not meet all of a particular SNG criteria, that does not trump GNG, so if that is met, a person qualifies. Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough of significance to pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Supported by 1 source from what is basically the news bulletin of her institution. No real claim of notability. It is telling that the article's own creator is not !voting "keep". Uncontroversial, in my opinion. Agricola44 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Update. Johnpacklambert (creator) changed to "keep", but does not indicate what from Montanabw's changed his mind. Agricola44 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep I have been persuaded by Montanabw's argument that we have enough sources to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Subject seems to pass the minimum, although I would like to see the article expanded. Shallownotthou (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Agricola. I am not seeing anything even remotely close to passing GNG here, not to mention WP:PROF. There is just one ref in the article, to a news bulletin from the subject's own institution. Nsk92 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are however several sources listed in the article. Just because they are under the heading of sources and not references does not mean you can just ignore them in considering sourcing, in fact it makes your argument for deletion highly suspect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, yes, sorry, you are right, I was indeed hasty and I missed the 'Sources' section below 'References'. However, now, looking at what is listed there more closely, I am still not convinced. The first item [1] looks like a library catalogue entry for her at BYU, where she worked. The second item there, [2], is her BYU faculty profile. The third item is a dead link[3]. The fourth item on the list, "Mormon Times, Dec. 8, 2009" [4] leads to the home-page of the newspaper "Desert News". I am not sure what is being referenced here. Doing a search for "Linda Hunter Adams" there produces two hits, with 1 sentence mentions of her name, in stories dated March 1, 2003 and April 13, 2009 [5], [6]. The next source listed is an Amazon.com entry for her. In my opinion, none of these sources amount to much in terms of WP:GNG. After that the 'Sources' section lists 3 obituaries, which is indeed much more substantive coverage. However, one of them, [7], appears to be a blog, even though it is hosted at the Association of Mormon Letters webpage. One other obituary [8] comes from a division BYU itself, the institution where she worked, not exactly an independent source. The last item there is an obituary in Daily Herald, a local paper [9]. From looking at this obituary, it seems clear that this is a paid obituary placed by family members, with an announcement of funeral and visitation arrangements, as is customary in these situations. Even taken together, I don't see this coverage as passing the bar of WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft instead, because considering WP:PROF, her leadership position at BYU is enough for WP:PROF; she's not notable for WP:AUTHOR considering there's only a 100-limited number of library holdings. SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. My concerns with the sources have already been articulated by Nsk92. There coverage is what I call trivial and the ones where the coverage is somewhat substantial are not independent sources. Accordingly, the significant coverage required is missing here. In fact, I looked up on Newspapers.com and wasn't able to find anything significant either. I'm not convinced about WP:PROF either - no significant work, or highest post in academia. The closest claim is the one about being an editor of the journal, but the WP:PROF criterion requires one to be an "editor-in-chief". Considering the lack of coverage in independent sources, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy/Draft if someone is willing to take it and work on it. If no one volunteers, I will. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was also willing to, so I thought Drafting to Draft:Linda Hunter Adams sufficed. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I appreciate ST and Nihonjoe's suggestions of userfy, an option we probably don't exercise enough for wikinotable but as yet undersourced entries; unfortunately though, I don't see what notability criteria this entry meets. I don't believe being a mid-level university administrator and editor is enough for an auto-pass at NACADEMIC (the closest would be criteria #8, but it does not seem like the pubs where she was top editor were major), so subject would need to pass GNG, and I think Nsk92 has done a good job explaining the current insufficiency of independent sources. If at some point someone does turn up independent sources, that would be good grounds to request the closer or another admin userfy the old entry for improvement. But so long as those sources remain hypothetical, I think delete is appropriate. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I point out that anybody can userfy by copying the source to their own sandbox or word processor. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete the leadership position doesn't even begin to satisfy WP:PROF. Doesn't pass GNG either. Delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no point in userifying as she will never meet WP:PROF. he references claimed to be relevant for GNG are not independent, and there is no reason to think theat better will be found, because thee is nothing in her career which would call for it. The relevant guideline for this is NOT MEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a point, and I will userfy it myself if the decision is to delete. I'm positive I can find enough independent sources to meet GNG, though I don't have the time at this very moment. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As found by multiple other editors, I just don't believe that she's notable. I also support deletion. I want to say as well, though, that I don't object if someone wants to work on a related draft page; that's their decision. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to be clear I wouldn't object to that either; anyone is welcome to work on whatever they wish. I only think it's useful at the AfD level to maintain a distinction between when "delete" is the right outcome and when "userfy" is better. I think doing so is more useful to anyone considering working on it, knowing what the community thought of the entry as it stands, and it's also a helpful track record if the entry gets revived but then renominated for deletion. I don't think it's so useful to close as "userfy" if consensus is that subject isn't notable (versus consensus that subject is likely notable, just hasn't been established yet). But for sure, that shouldn't stand in the way of anyone who has access to as-yet unidentified sources that might demonstrate notability! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2016 (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.