Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardis E. Parshall

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. Sandstein 23:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ardis E. Parshall

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

Parshall does not pass any notability criteria. The 3 sources do not amount to substantial coverage in 3rd person, reliable sources. The two I can see are a brief mention in acknowledgements to a book, and a briefer mention as one of multiple speakers at a conference in Utah being highlighted in an article in a Utah newspaper. This is not the stuff that would show any historian to be notable. On the side of her academic activities, the only one by Parshall that seems substantial is co-editing an encyclopedia of Mormon history. However this does not seem to rise to the level of academic notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- A blp subject must have at least two mainstrem media sources that signify her garnering "significant coverage

in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In Parshalls case, this threshhold is reached. wp:WEB indicates web content notable "if the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries [...and] websites." I could be here linking to blog mentions of Ardis and Keepa. Instead I'll cite two instances she earned major coverage.

A profile feature at Religion News solely concerning a project of hers of great public interest. https://religionnews.com/2015/05/28/mormon-kickstarter-campaign-places-women-at-center-stage-in-lds-history/
"Mormon Church historian Ardis E. Parshall’s ready access to archival materials underpins her mostly humorous posts on LDS history and culture, along with fiction, jokes, and art from past church magazines, found at Keepapitchinin." --Oxford Univ. Press blog
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not actually notability as author. With respect to the blog, it would be necesaary to show, first, that the blog is notable,and second that her specific role in running it is notable also, and the mention among many other blogs in the OUP posting is not sufficient. She is co-editor of Mormonism : a historical encyclopedia by ABCCLIO, a standard reference work held every important library, but that alone is not enough. She is co-editor of Dime novel Mormons, but it is held in almost no libraries. Books in preparation don't count for anything. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Keepapitchin'in is a one-woman blog. She has no perma co-authors there but the very occassional guest author or two.[1]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator - in terms of WP:AUTHOR, she hasn't quite done anything notable yet, even with the curated encyclopedia. Perhaps she'll get there with her kickstarter book. I don't think either of the sources identified above in this AfD are helpful, either: the kickstarter runs into WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL problems, and she gets only a trivial mention in the Oxford source. Also, running a blog does not convey notability. Delete for not satisfying WP:AUTHOR. SportingFlyer talk 06:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy as WP:TOOSOON. A niche (in this case Mormon history) blogger or freelancer has to reach a pretty high threshold for Wikipedia inclusion, and this person is not there yet. The fact that they have a "book in progress" seems to indicate that that threshold may be met when the book is published and the author receives more recognition. This is why I suggest WP:USERFY, or that the article creator (Hodgdon's secret garden) keep a copy of the wiki article, for use for if/when that happens, in case the threshold is more clearly met at that point. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish I could say I see some evidence of notability but I don't. Deb (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find enough reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Absent the coverage of the blog, it's hard to show that it is notable. Probably the most notable item is being a columnist for the Salt Lake Tribune, but even then a search brings up a handful of her articles, yet no coverage of her. [[2]] I'm not sure there's enough here to even warrant userfying it, but would have no problem with doing so. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:03, 9 March 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.