Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scot and Maurine Proctor
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 00:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scot and Maurine Proctor
- Scot and Maurine Proctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Thin on sources. Founder of non-notable mag. Redlinky. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources available do not convey notability of this couple. This said, regardless of the pairing, I'm thinking that, once they attain notability, they should each have an article that stands up to our standards. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, first off, I think Meridian Magazine is a significant publication. Also, their edition of Lucy Mack Smith's history of Joseph Smith may be disliked by some historicans, but it is widely read and used. The fact of the matter is that most things Scot and Maurine do, they do as a couple, such as publishing Meridian Magazine, as well as most of their books, so arguing for seperate articles makes about as much sense as saying we should have seperate articles on Jared and Jerusha Hess.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
- I'll concede to that for the as-a-couple factor, which unto itself is fine. In reviewing the article, however, I've found only one viable reference point. I've already stricken one that was going to a nonexistent page on Deseret Books' website. Biggest concern I have is that we only have a review of their DVD that would even go near being a reliable source of information - the rest appear to be blogs and book sellers. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll concede to that for the as-a-couple factor, which unto itself is fine. In reviewing the article, however, I've found only one viable reference point. I've already stricken one that was going to a nonexistent page on Deseret Books' website. Biggest concern I have is that we only have a review of their DVD that would even go near being a
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added several more references. Any future debate needs to consider these new references before weighing what should be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- talk) 09:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:36, 16 March 2010 (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.