Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julio E. Dávila (2nd nomination)

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. SpinningSpark 21:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julio E. Dávila[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)

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE source searches for independent, reliable sources only provide short directory listings, such as in the 2008 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac consisting of two sentences (link). The remaining sources in the article are all primary sources, and do not establish notability, and the external link is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete This is similar to having articles on relatively unknown baseball players. Within the Latter Day Saint community, he is notable. I believe that there was a committee that was working on some ground rules for Latter Day Saints. @Rachel Helps (BYU): I feel like I remember you being on this committee systematizing this, but I can't remember what page I read it. Am I making this up? Epachamo (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epachamo: The problem is that the subject is non-notable per Wikipedia's standards. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required, and from my extensive source searches, said required coverage does not appear to exist. Subjects that are notabile within the LDS community do not get a free pass for a Wikipedia article; they need to meet Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Look at this Wikipedia policy WP:NBASE. A person is presumed notable if they "Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff." I would argue the same applies here. Being in the second quorum of the seventy is minor celebrity status in the LDS community and should be presumed notable. Epachamo (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epachamo: You're entitled to your opinion, but your analysis is an entire synthesis of notability guidelines. First of all, Dávila is not a baseball player, and also, secondary notability guidelines such as WP:NBASE have been developed via consensus, rather than arbitrary opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are guidelines being developed via consensus right now on this very issue. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Latter_Day_Saints#RfC:_LDS_MOS_Notability_standards. @Jgstokes:, as you are taking the lead on developing these guidelines, I'd be curious to get your input. Regardless, as this subject is being debated right now, I think we should hold off on deleting it for now. Epachamo (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epachamo: Per that talk page discussion you link to directly above, I must object to your WP:CANVASSING of people to this discussion who may have a conflict of interest regarding notability standards and LDS related pages. It comes across that you are trying to get others to come along and !vote keep, but you are not pinging other users who may be for deletion. Also, that discussion has not been active since 13 September 2021, over two months ago. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000:, Jgstokes is a fine editor who deserves a bit more respect. I seriously doubt he has a conflict of interest as you insinuate that would preclude him from contributing to this discussion in a meaningful way. It is ludicrous not to bring in a person who has been working on a policy that addresses this very issue. Epachamo (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, as no disrespect has been stated or implied on my part, nor is any intended whatsoever. Notice this excerpt from that talk page discussion, where it is stated, "we'd need to establish a standard of notability in these new guidelines that will be sufficient to support keeping those articles". The major premise there is for LDS-related articles to be kept as a sort of default, rather than basing notability upon present standards that most other topics must adhere to. A short thread on a talk page that only two users have contributed to, and has not been edited for over two months, is not a particularly active discussion; I don't notice any guidelines being developed regarding this matter as you state above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the plain fact of this matter is that this deletion discussion is based upon present guidelines, rather than some theoretical secondary notability guideline that is presently nonexistent. Sorry, but non-notable subjects do not receive a free pass for an article based upon a two-month old talk page discussion with two participants, nor do they from a synthesis of an unrelated secondary notability guideline regarding baseball players. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point with the baseball umpires is that there is a rubric for determining notability. There is a precedent. Just as the act of being a major league baseball umpire is a notable enough act to warrant a wikipedia article, my argument is that the very act of being called as a general authority in the LDS Church is notable enough. There should be a rubric for Latter Day Saint articles just as there are for baseball themed articles, but there isn't. Before deleting articles that people have spent a lot of time and effort creating, it would be better to spend energy creating that notability rubric so that this deletion discussion doesn't get repeated on any number of pages. Various respected editors had been working on such a rubric. There is no urgency in deleting this article, nor harm done waiting for comment from Jgstokes on his progress. Epachamo (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the wikipedia guidelines and have humbly rescinded my previous recommendation. I now agree that this should be deleted. I have moved relevant information to article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Colombia. Epachamo (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that as it is, there aren't any independent sources on the page (i.e., none not published in church publications). The page does not pass notability criteria. I was invited to help with drafting new notability guidelines for GAs, but my personal feeling is that they are not necessary (I also feel that certain sports pages have overreached notability guidelines as well). Maybe some of the information here can be added to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Colombia. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2021 (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.