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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig C. Christensen[edit]

Craig C. Christensen (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)

A subject that does not meet WP:BASIC:

• Various source searches are only providing passing mentions and name checks, as well as quotations and quotations by the subject acting as a spokesperson (the latter two types of sources are primary in nature, and do not establish notability).
• Not finding the necessary independent, significant (in-depth) coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article
• Three of the sources in the article are primary or unreliable, and regarding the two remaining reliable sources in the article, one has no mention of the subject at all, and the other does not provide significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is significant indepth coverage in light of his role related to the Utah ballot provision on medical marijuana.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I saw that single source before nominating. Here's the article, which contains a grand total of three short sentences about the email the subject sent, with the remainder of the article consisting of a reprinting of the email (the latter part of which is primary in nature, and not usable to establish notability). Regarding this matter:

• This is not significant coverage, and does not establish encyclopedic notability,
• Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, and the source mentioned in the keep !vote above does not even provide that. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 20 November 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.