Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John K. Edmunds

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 no consensus. No prejudice against renomination if the article is not improved after some time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John K. Edmunds (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)

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, with available usable sources consisting of name checks and faint mentions. The article relies upon a list of primary sources, which do not qualify notability, and from searches, no usable sources to meet WP:BASIC appear to be available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I believe this article probably meets WP:BIO requirements, however needs some strong WP:C/E, in particular WP:CS. Deaddebate (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless Deaddebate can show specific criterion at BIO that this subject passes, I oppose. I see no notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My thoughts on various assertions in the article and how they bear on notability, if verifiable:
  • General committee of the YMMIA: not notable.
  • General committee of the YMMIA, worked on basketball expansion: notable.
  • Relationships to George S. Romney: slight weight toward notability, although of course not everyone related to a Romney is notable.
  • Member of first Stake Presidency of Chicago Stake: notable, assuming that was the first Stake in Chicago. Or at least, the first Stake President should be notable.
  • Stake president at building of Stake Center: if the Stake Center itself is notable, perhaps? Does it have unique architecture, or was it the first of a widely-used pattern? Or were there contemporary nonlocal news reports of some dispute about the site?
  • Church board for Home Teaching: maybe notable, depends on his role.
  • Original Regional Representatives: I'd like that to be notable, although there were 69 of them.
  • President of Salt Lake temple: maybe the president of a random recently-constructed temple isn't notable, but I think any president of the Salt Lake temple should be.
  • Book. Notable if the book is notable, or sufficiently popular. Maybe proven by a review, or a citation in another work? DavidLeeLambert (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• None of those seems to confer notability per WP:BIO, he doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Chicago Stake was when created one of only two LDS stakes in the Eastern United States. On the other hand, its membership proably did not exceed 5,000, and was possible no more than 2,000. The other stake at that point in the eastern US was the New York City Stake. The next stake in the eastern US was the Washington, DC stake. The first president of the Washington DC stake, Ezra Taft Benson, we have an article on, but for reasons not at all related to his holding that position (well, at least not directly). The first president of the NYC stake I am drawing a blank on. I would however argue that no post 1905 stake president is notable for being such. Prior to that year we have men like Angus M. Cannon who prisided over stakes that were large enough to make them default notable for that alone. Bryant S. Hinckley in the 1920s presided over a stake with over 20,000 members, so that might add to his notability. Harold B. Lee made so many inovations that lead to the Church Welfare Program as it would exist for at least the next 50 years as president of the Pioneer Stake in Salt Lake City and its western suburbs (well, then more like outlying farm communities, it was Granger and Hunter which as now West Valley City, Utah, he also took in basically all the way to temple square, Thomas S. Monson was a member of his stake), that he might be notable for that alone. I just found this [1] when I searched for John Edmunds Mormon. I have not made it far enough in to say if it says anything substantive about Edmunds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Leader of a significant church would pass notability guidelines. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits)} 09:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability. Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article without said independent coverage, because there is no guideline or policy that allows such presumed notability for Mormon subjects. Subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I hunted for additional sourcing and could only find passing references. If there were some inherent notability of being in charge of the Salt Lake City Temple, you'd think we'd find coverage demonstrating that. Digging deeper, I can't find an obituary in a reliable source, which would be a good info source and proof of mainstream notability. I looked for sourcing for the book, and couldn't find any mainstream coverage outside of religious books and sites. The sourcing here and that which I found fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:16, 14 August 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.