Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos A. Godoy

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. Tone 20:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos A. Godoy[edit]

[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)

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Several source searches, including custom source searches, all as per WP:BEFORE, are not providing adequate independent coverage in reliable sources; just name checks, passing mentions and quotations, none of which establish notability. With the exception of one source, the entire article is reliant upon primary sources, and the one independent source ([1]) does not provide anything near significant coverage. Furthermore, the primary sources in the article and available in online searches do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The presidency of the seventy is inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is no presumed notability for religious subjects, nor is there any guideline or policy that states such. Notability on Wikipedia is based upon the encyclopedia's notability standards, not personal opinions about notability, and the encyclopedia's standards require significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which does not appear to be available for this subject. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not there is any such thing as "inherent notability", I'm not convinced it attaches to the presidents of the seventies, if it exists at all. And, putting that issue aside, there are very minimal sources for this individual from non-LDS publications. (And even the LDS sources seem to be just run-of-the-mill coverage, nothing making him stand out.) SJK (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 18:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, largely per NA. I am unable to find substantive intellectually independent coverage in reliable sources, and I am not convinced by the "inherently notable" argument. Vanamonde (talk) 17:31, 22 October 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.