Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrián Ochoa

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. Secret ^account 17:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrián Ochoa

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

Yet another LDS general authority article that has no sources except from LDS websites. As there is no policy stating that LDS general authorities are inherently notable, we default to GNG, which is clearly not met with this article. p b p 03:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been capably argued with other articles about general authorities, just because they fail GNG doesn't automatically make them unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I still believe that Vojen's excellent argument on this matter cannot be overlooked. The main argument against it? That it ignores GNG, which Vojen freely admits. As previously noted, there have been other articles that are more poorly sourced than this one, or not sourced at all, which remain untouched. I don't like the double standard here. Either all of these articles should be kept or none of them should be. I see a dangerous precedent being set. If we allow poorly sourced or non-sourced articles to remain while informational articles such as this, even if the sources tend to come from one particular organization and thus "violate" GNG, we are sending a clear message that we don't want to risk anyone being enlightened about such subjects. And I'm not sure that's a message we want to be sending. What about those users who come here for information on general authorities and can't find them? If you are going to argue that Second Quorum members fail GNG, then surely dead prophets and apostles do too, since their legacy has no further impact. I believe everyone would agree it would be foolhardy to suggest that any of those articles be deleted. So I have to ask why Second Quorum members are being unfairly singled out, simply because their service is not considered lifelong? As with other deletion discussions, this will likely be my one and only comment. I will be monitoring this page to see how this discussion turns out. And, as with previous deletion discussions, I urge civility and good faith in all discourses related to this issue. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgstokes:, would you rather I started 10-15 separate AfDs all at once? The way I'm doing it (stringing the AfDs out over 3 months and counting) allows you that much more time to try to source the articles. And, yes, Vojen's argument can be overlooked, because he, and you, are ignoring the primary guideline that determines whether articles stay or go. The only message we are sending by enforcing GNG is that articles require reliable sources to be articles. You don't seem to understand that that is a must for any Wikipedia article, and it's even more of a must for somebody like Ochoa who is still living. Comparing living dead general authorities to dead members of the Quorum of the Twelve is apples and oranges. Dead members of the Quorum of the Twelve are not only exempt from BLP, they may have more information written about them. "Impact of legacy" is not a determiner for keeping articles, sourcing is. Claiming that this article should be allowed to exist while other articles that are seemingly worse are allowed to remain is generally considered an invalid argument. From your responses in this and other AfDs, it's becoming clear to me that you don't understand GNG. I suggest you read it, as Wikipedia's sourcing policies and guidelines and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, before participating in more AfDs or creating more LDS authority articles. p b p 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to begin with the discussion on Randy Funk provided strong arguments on why these articles should be kept. Additionally, Ochoa has served both as a counselor in the general presidency of the Young Men and as a general authority. This gives more points of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert:, there's no such thing as points of notability. You're either notable or not. Notability is determined by reliable independent sources. This article has none. As for claiming the Randy Funk case sets a precedent for keeping these, setting aside any issue of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Jgstokes tried to apply the consensus at Funk to other articles in a DRV. The deletion of those articles was endorsed, and it's likely that Funk himself would also be deleted if nominated a second time. p b p 06:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89:, if you're going to argue that Funk would likely be deleted if nominated a second time, then how do you explain the fact that, using the same argument that saved the Funk article, the deletion discussion about Wilford W. Andersen was voted first as no consensus, then as keep? Just curious to understand your reasoning. And I know what I said about the previous comment likely being my only one, but when I saw your latest reply, I just had to ask. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgstokes:, you do realize the reason the Funk and Anderson articles were saved wasn't because you had a good argument (you don't), but was because you, Vojen, and JPL were the only people who voted, don't you? The Anderson article was closed as no consensus the first time because it was a mass nomination, and the community requested it be split into individual, and the second time because of low participation. Remember what happened when you tried to extrapolate the Anderson and Funk closes into restoring deleted LDS authority articles? In a discussion where there was much more community participation, the community said keep them deleted, and other editors expressed surprised that the Anderson and Funk articles were kept. Likewise, you can't extrapolate you getting lucky a couple of times to keeping this article. As I noted on your talk page, there are only two ways to stop most of the LDS general authority articles from being deleted: 1) adequately source them, or 2) try to get a consensus at the Village Pump that all General authority articles are notable. p b p 11:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. About the wikilawyering concerning some "automatic notability" for Mormon authorities, there is an established consensus at AfDs and DRV that being a Mormon authority is not a "free pass" for having an article on Wikipedia. The problem here is that have no neutral or independent source about Ochoa, just some routinely Church News coverage. No apparent chance of passing WP:GNG or any other SNG. Cavarrone 05:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources showing notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At this point, I don't see sufficient coverage in reliable sources. If you can find independent reliable sources, then fine -- but until then, the article should not exist. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient non-primary or secondary sources that provide the subject significant coverage that suggest the subject meets WP:GNG. Alternatively, the article can be changed to a redirect to the article about General authority, such as this article List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however until the subject can meet WP:GNG from non-secondary and non-primary sources, I believe this article falls under too soon, and I wouldn't be opposed to the the creators incubating the article until the time arises when there are sufficient tertiary sources to show independent notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2014 (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.