Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ángel Abrea (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 January 30. The result of the deletion review was Reopen and relist.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus. Just like last time around... Sandstein 09:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Abrea

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable subject that continues to fail WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources is limited to faint passing mentions. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT We need Spanish language input here. I see two ES-language sources which may indicate sigcov 1 2. There may be others. EDIT: and as noted in the previous delete discussions, no, something is not just a primary source because it is published by a publisher related to the Mormons. FOARP (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As pointed out in the previous discussion we have sources such as the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, edited by notable academics. To exclude it based on who the publishing company it was published by was is to create a very broad and troubling precedent for exclusion of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that source provide significant coverage or fleeting passing mentions? One source being existent does not create automatic notability; there needs to be significant coverage. Furthermore, multiple sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD was only two months ago, why has a new AFD been opened so quickly? FOARP (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two months is plenty of time to allow for notability to be demonstrated, such as by adding sources to the article. However, if said sources don't exist, the subject is non-notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the two Spanish language books that FOARP found are barely more than passing mentions. A google of News and Books isn't turning up much else. So, we just have the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History—one source, possibly not significant and/or independent. If there isn't significant coverage beyond LDS-published sources, that's a good sign that he's not notable. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 13:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my argument last time, and I'm not seeing any new arguments to sway me otherwise. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia, but your !vote in the last AfD was largely based upon this premise. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no presumed notability for any subject, with the possible exception of species with an accepted taxonomy. The point has to do with which subjects have encyclopedic value. The problem with religious subjects is that Southern Baptists don't write about Hare Krishnas, the Hindus don't write about Assyrian Orthodox, Presbyterians don't write about Jehovah's Witnesses, and general secular media/academia doesn't cover any of it (unless there's some juicy scandal involved.) That does not make the subjects un-encyclopedic, in this case it is a subject which demonstrably influenced the history of the faith millions and millions of people adhere to. Therefore sometimes we need to use the best sources available, which are going to be published by the LDS/Presbyterians/Jehovah's Witnesses/Hare Krishnas. There's no indication in this particular instance it was influenced by the subject, but of course healthy skepticism needs to be applied here regarding NPOV because the subject and publisher belong to the same religious sect. So if the source says "This person was a saint with no faults, and he cured cancer in many" then it has no place here, but biographical facts, and details regarding their influence within the faith can and should be used. It is my opinion and !vote therefore that the encyclopedia would be poorer without this topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide just two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject? This is the bare minimum of what is required to demonstrate notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. These necessary sources appear to be nonexistent. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact I don't see an issue with the sources presented in the article per above, there's [1], [2]. I realize there is disagreement here regarding what constitutes "independent", but my reading of our current policy regarding independent sources would indicate to me that these sources are potentially (likely) biased, but are independent as there's no evidence Abrea has any editorial oversight or influence on these publications. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm really confused. This is clearly a debate without a consensus. All the sources have been found and there's good faith disagreement about their value and applicability. It was rightly and accurately closed as no consensus after 14 days of discussion, and then that close was taken to DRV and summarily overturned as a BADNAC, even though that's exactly the outcome envisaged in WP:RELIST. If it had been allowed to stay at DRV, then I would have expected a bit of a waggy finger at the closer for their generic closing statement and failure to engage on their talk page, but a resounding endorse for their decision. Why are we here?—S Marshall T/C 00:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to go off-topic making this a DRV2, so this will be short. I feel that 1) a total of five users participating is rather minimal, along with 2) the "tied" nature of !votes herein, warranted a second relist, among other reasons, such as the closer ignoring my two requests for discussion regarding the matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this deserved a re-list because a major part of the discussion took place immediately before "closing time", and I thought it would be better to give other editors an opportunity to react to that discussion, and that while consensus may not develop it certainly has a chance to. I agree with NA1000 and the DelRev reviewer that WP:BADNAC applies by criteria #2 and 3. #2 in that the positions currently are far apart, and #3 in that his AfD record shows a high number of "kept" nominations. This is not meant to belittle the original closer, or that they did anything "wrong". I merely am of the opinion, and I think NA1000 agrees, that relisting in this instance is the better option. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that Wikipedians are a secular bunch and most are uninterested in religious topics, but I suppose there could plausibly be a sudden rush of new participants. I hope that's the outcome. If it isn't, I feel that it would be very inappropriate to relist again.—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a third relist would be inappropriate. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually two comments about 78.26's point above. First, academics and journalists write about faiths other than their own all the time, and if anything smaller denominations and sects (even, say, the Gülen movement or Heaven's Gate) are overrepresented in academic and popular literature. Second, the official LDS sources may be reliable for some information on the subject, and they are reliable indicators of the church's position on something. But they are not independent of the church, as the church has a vested interest in building up the name and reputation of people whom it is presenting as messengers of doctrine and teaching handed down from the apostles. The subject doesn't have to walk over and influence the PR writer in her cubicle. If both are being directed by the same organization, then the PR writer's coverage of the subject is not independent. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a WP:BEFORE search in Spanish brought up almost nothing, and nothing of any sourceable notes. The LDS sources in the article are functionally WP:PRIMARY, and the secondary source here [3] isn't WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 6 February 2019 (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.