Deletion of Reyna I. Aburto

Comment: There seems to be a difference of opinion over the interpretation of . Sources affiliated with religious organizations, or declaring a religious commitment, can sometimes be the most rigorously researched and vetted by writers and publishers, and therefore may be among the most reliable for religion-specific information. But notability within a religious context does not necessarily map onto Wikipedia notability. Adding unaffiliated sources helps establish general notability for the subject ''in addition to'' notability within the religious context. In this case, the concern seems to be that LDS-owned newspapers and magazines, or blogs with explicit religious commitments, may well choose to cover a subject based on religious affiliation, and therefore only support one point of view on the subject. But that concern is easy to address as long as the subject is generally notable, since other sources will be out there to widen the range of perspectives
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:BIASED)

Comment: Keep in mind that  can be satisfied by sources that ''exist'', not just sources that happen to be online and already used in the article to support a particular citation. Instead of arguing over each LDS General Authority, however, it might be useful to have a cutoff above which they're presumed notable; and I think member of the General Relief Society presidency would be above a reasonable cutoff
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)