This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Utah. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Utah|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Utah. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Utah/archive

KCAY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Rarely would I AfD such a recently created article, but this article should be a textbook case for editors returning to the radio stations field that haven't been around it in five or so years.

Once upon a time, the mere fact that a station had a broadcast license was enough in the eyes of observers to guarantee notability. As recently as 2019 or so, new-on-air stations like KCAY would have been eligible for an article as soon as they began broadcasting or sometimes before that. It is true that, historically, licensed radio stations often generated coverage significant to translate into notability, a correlation that was much stronger in the early years of this encyclopedia and held for many U.S. stations that originated their own programming at some point. But that has broken once and for all:

• In the wake of the 2021 RfC on media notability, the general notability guideline (GNG) became the yardstick for measuring the notability of broadcast stations. Not all of them have been able to measure up.
• Significant coverage of radio has substantially decreased in the last 10 to 15 years. The reasons for this are the decline in local print journalism and the continued decline (in relative value) of radio as a mass medium and of local media covering the local media. New stations in this period, such as KCAY (which began broadcasting within the last two weeks), struggle to gain sufficient coverage to pass the GNG. It is worth noting that in the context of "significant coverage", routine announcements and FCC documentation (such as are currently referenced on the page, which was part of how it returned to article space) do not count. Even some RadioInsight articles do not qualify for purposes of ascertaining notability.
  • Not relevant to the instant case, but some countries have less reliable sourcing to work with, which unfortunately leads to this being even worse a factor in countries like the Philippines, where I have had to plead with editors to bring better sources to the table.

We have had a revolution in our field that existence is not notability. If I go to the area near St. George, Utah, I could listen to KCAY on my radio. That does not, however, mean it is notable and worthy of a standalone article. A redirect to List of radio stations in Utah is merited, but nothing more. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Utah. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sammi, I have added quite a bit of information about the historical value of KCAY, including its inclusion in a FCC decision that was without precedent. I have also added broadcast site information that identifies KCAY as being located at a former microwave communications TD-2 location and information about a failed sale of the station. There is quite a bit of history associated with KCAY, especially as it relates to the FCC decisions, in my opinion. Matevian (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of radio stations in Utah I share Sammi's concerns throughout this article; we've long known that for Utah media, and especially the St. George market, there is absolutely no way this station is designed to forever serve that community (their original COL was Caliente, Nevada before the bump to Enterprise, Utah to get into St. George; Nevada is known for very absurd COL moves, including what is now WJLP in New York originating in Ely); they're going to do all they can to force themselves into Salt Lake City, and certainly not with this generic oldies format, and this is just transmitter move no. 1 in a long process to get it near the Great Salt Lake. Right now this is a station you can listen to, nothing more than that, with no established history or even an air staff.

The thing that sticks out to me most though is the creator of the article, Matevian (talk · contribs), had only three edits last decade, and has suddenly returned to create this article, along with WYAB, an article they exhibit ownership over, including the promotion of one of their host's congressional campaigns (and with all of their images uploaded including station logos, as 'own work', possibly including their own picture), so there is definitely a WP:COI in play here, along with possible paid editing. They also continue to push Radio Locator links into their articles, which have long been depreciated. I suspect the IP that has done most of the editing on WYAB is also Matevian, though that cannot be confirmed outside a checkuser and I wouldn't ask for that for an AfD involving a completely different article. So those concerns more than outweigh the issue that this station is non-notable, but also involves a personal conflict of interest due to Matevian's very obvious lack of editing activity outside a few articles they have selected on their own. Nathannah • 📮 14:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm, the LMS system does show someone as KCAY's representative, based at WYAB's studio in Flora, MS, with a WYAB contact address, and a partial match to the above user name (per WP:OUTING no other details will be disclosed here). Nathannah • 📮 15:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the above, the license establishment process is usually a complex but compulsory process where decisions can be made and still undone, and the average reader is hardly concerned about that process at all; most of the time the technical and regulatory details are minimized in an article because that is of no use to the listener at all. Whatever the regulatory issues are with the license have been (a grant reversal because of changes to another licensee, along with "Delete, Delete, Delete" changing the process) aren't of concern usually; the programming, notability and service to the community is usually what clinches WP:N, and a station in a market known to have applicants always trying to move towards another city is usually of little note unless they are on the air and established for a number of years with local service and programming, not just launching operations with a completely automated network or service from elsewhere. Nathannah • 📮 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathannah, I respectfully believe that the FCC's reversal of a Final Order application grant has significant precedential and historical value. It had not happened in the context of a full power broadcast radio facility until the KCAY decision. The FCC had determined that its KCAY application approval was in error by read of the Order, but the application was not contested in any other way. The FCC does not (generally) review any decision on its own motion, as was the case with KCAY, especially not one that has attained Final Order status. The FCC order on KCAY will almost certainly be cited in future broadcast applications, as it calls into question the FCC's until then well-understood definition of a Final Order grant. Even if not of interest to the radio station's listeners, the KCAY case is certainly of historical notoriety in communications law. Matevian (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Oil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Despite the company's regional presence, it lacks coverage from multiple reliable sources Hopkinkse (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hopkinkse (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:N and WP:V. It has reliable coverage as well. [1][2][3][4][5] There are many more secondary, passing mentions of the subject and other sources available. It (the article) definitely needs some work on the references and details. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Stokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Most cited sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT, a fact overlooked in the 2019 deletion discussion. Sources establishing notability consist of two articles from the Deseret News (Stokes sat on their editorial board, and one of the articles is announcing that fact), two human-interest stories from the Salt Lake Tribune (at the time they were written, party to a Joint Operating Agreement with the Deseret News [[6]] and operating out of the same building), and two interview transcripts on Mormon-themed blogs (possibly independent, but hardly WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV). Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree to your bias assessment of independent sources. While it is true the Deseret News should not be considered independent for this subject, the Salt Lake Tribune is a separate legal entity and there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that maintain its independent status. "Mormon-themed blogs" are also not an exclusionary source just as "baseball-themed blogs" would not be exclusionary to create interviews independent of Major League Baseball. I agree completely in efforts to require independent sourcing, but for a pioneering woman of color this article meets the requirements--and has already been reviewed as such in the past. Fullrabb (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Illinois, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to Deseret News. That is where Catherine M. Stokes redirects at present. Given that the original AfD did not note the lack of independence amongst the sources combined with the fact that a search of sources via the Chicago Public Library and at the State Archives revealed that contrary to one contributor's assertion, there is not in fact a substantial amount of content from her time in Illinois. The articles gave her the title of manager and assistant deputy director in the state's Office of Health Care Regulation. The lack of being listed in the Illinois Blue Book at any point makes me wonder if Deputy Director was her final title or if they rounded up in her editorial biography. There is a reason that Catherine M. Stokes redirects to the Deseret News. This should too.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am looking for sources and also for possible merge or redirect targets. There are several articles on African-Americans and the Mormon church - Black Mormons has a list of notable Black Mormons which includes several people whose articles are currently at AfD, so including them in that or another article in some way may be a useful ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @RebeccaGreen, did you find anything? -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been working on other articles at AfD, I did find some coverage in digitised newspapers from several states (ie not just LDS-owned publications and not just where she lived) - I'll add it and see if she meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added the sources and info I am able to access online (there are others, but I either don't have access or have reached my limit in those titles on Google Books). I believe that she at least meets WP:BASIC, with coverage in books published by Oxford University Press, University of Illinois Press, Brigham Young University Press, the Chicago Tribune and other newspapers and journals. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not believe the Chicago Tribune sources you cite constitute in-depth coverage of the subject (as I stated I looked). The few articles are far closer to the three blind mice (quotes in her capacity as a mid-level IDPH employee, reaction to local LDS event) than the IBM book per example provided in "significant coverage" in WP:GNG. The other sources do make a strong case. Please note those were not in the article at the time of my vote. --Mpen320 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." The sources I found and added yesterday are not trivial, and although the secondary sources are not in-depth, they combine to meet WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the sources found by Rebecca which turns this poor article into a passable one Scooby453w (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I maintain my views on the Illinois sources and think her title needs to not be listed as Deputy Director, I think the sources found during this AfD get this over the hill to merit continued inclusion in Wikipedia.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]