Octaviano Tenorio – Endorse there is an overwhelming consensus to endorse the closure as proper. Arguments provided suggested a lack of consensus. – Valoemtalkcontrib 20:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closure is a supervote, imposing the closer's own views against the consensus of the discussion, and without a policy basis for doing so. (I tried a discussion with the closer before DRV (permalink)) Two main probs: 1/ The closer asserts that if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability. 1/A That is in effect a special notability guideline (SNG), but no such SNG has ever achieved consensus. Those which exist have all arisen out of lengthy debate, and it is wrong for a closer to announce an unwritten SNG without evidence of consensus to create one. 1/B The phrase "major religion" is at best highly problematic here. Several comparisons were made with the Roman Catholic Church, which has existed since the 1st Century CE, and currently claims 1.27 billion members. There are ~1.7 billion Muslims, and ~500milion Buddhists. By contrast the LDS Church has existed since 1830, and claims less than 16 million current members. That's two orders of manitude smaller. So even if there was an existing consensus to treat major religion topics as notable, there would be a further debate as to whether the tiny LDS fits that label. Whatever the outcome of such a discussion, it is a matter for consensus rather than ex-cathedra pronouncement. 2/ The closer's dismissal of the argument that the sources are not independent is eloquent, but it is a personal view rather than a weighing of the discussion against policy. The closer even introduces his own analogies rather than drawing on the AFD. In post-close discussion, the closer claimed[1] that the key delete argument was that "a source is unreliable if it's associated with the organisation from which the article subject derives their notability". This is a fundamental misrepresentation of the delete argument, which is about a difft pillar of the WP:GNG: it's about the independence of the sources rather than their reliability. The core argument for deletion was that i) Deseret News is not just a supporter of the LDS Church, or run by adherents of the LDS; it a wholly-owned subsiduary of the LDS Church structure itself. ii) No matter how accurate/honest/reliable its journalism, its choice of topics cannot be be regarded as "intellectually independent" of the organisation which owns it; iii) that lack of independence means that the only sources on Tenorio are articles written by employees of the organisation in which he is a senior member. In other words, the only people who write about Tenorio are the wholly-owned employees of his team. (As a general authority, Tenorio is at the highest levels of leadership in the church which wholly owns the paper.) The closer uses the analogy of The Spectator magazine, which usually supports the British Conservative Party; but the Spec is a friend of the Conservatives, not a wholly-owned subsidiary, and it can be vociferously critical of the party. That confusion between subsidiary and partisan ally blurs the crucial difference between friend and servant.
I restate that argument for deletion not to re-fight the merits of the case, but to emphasise that the closer fundamentally misinterpreted the arguments they were supposed to weigh against policy ... and inserted their own view rather than weighing the discussion. The AFD should be relisted, and the closer should participate in the discussion rather than making a supervote. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about this, BHG, I really am. I can feel the passion in your statement and I can tell that you feel a sense of injustice here. But honestly, I don't think this listing has any prospect of success. When there's been a very long, full discussion and editors can't agree, and the closer calls it "no consensus" and backs that up with a thoughtful and nuanced closing statement, DRV always endorses. Always. It was indubitably the right close. I'm sorry to be so negative but I can't envisage any other outcome.—S MarshallT/C 19:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: But you would concede that this outcome is a one-off and shouldn't be used as a precedent for outcomes of future AfDs? You'd agree that there wasn't consensus to establish any SNGs (which the closure comes dangerously close to suggesting in his close) or any precedent that Deseret News is independent of Mormon leaders despite being owned by the LDS Church? Because there is already talk of using this outcome to restore other Mormon leader articles here. In his close, the closer comes too close to establishing precedent with his wording, and that's why we're at DRV. pbp 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely and emphatically agree that this close should not establish a precedent of any kind. A "no consensus" close of an outlier debate is certainly no basis for a SNG (and deletion review has a long history of taking a dim view of SNGs). Hard cases make bad law and this case was as hard as they come. I am confident that "no consensus" was the correct close. This is not to say that I agree with every word Iridescent typed, and for the avoidance of doubt I don't.—S MarshallT/C 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: thanks for your friendly and thoughtful comments. I appreciate what you're saying. My own definition of "success" here would be for someone to find two or more independent reliable sources, so that GNG was clearly established. However, unless and until that happens, we are in this mess, where there is no satisfactory outcome. I can appreciate the argument for saying that "no consensus" was a likely outcome, but while I disagree that it was a reasonable close, my concern is not really about this particular article. Like Pbp, I am most alarmed at the prospect of this setting some sort of precedent: that because we don't want to appear mean, we overlook the fundamental reasons for requiring independent coverage to establish notability, and thereby chip away at a very fundamental principle of how Wikipedia works as a tertiary publication. I am particularly alarmed at the notion that a closer can pronounce an unwritten SNG, and whatever the fate of this article, I hope that can be nipped in the bud. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would take a full RfC to enact a new SNG on Wikipedia. I'm sure Iridescent knows this. His explanation of his close is commendably full and thorough, and of course when someone writes a lot of text there's always a weakest point. The implication of some kind of new guideline is there, if you read what he wrote in the wrong light. It's unfortunate and, I'm sure, unintentional. In view of the concerns raised by respected editors, perhaps the closer of this DRV could say that while we endorse the no-consensus finding, we specifically reject the establishment of any guideline or precedent on the basis of that finding.—S MarshallT/C 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: thanks again. It has been an unexpected pleasure to find such a civil and constructive start to DRV after an unusually raucous AFD. Your suggestion of a qualified endorsement sounds like a good way of containing the fallout from this saga. It would push the meta-issues off to where they really belong, which is in RFC territory. That would provide some firmer ground for everyone to stand on if this comes article returns to AFD. BTW, I should say that while I disagree strongly with this close, I have not lost my long-standing high regard for the closer. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse S Marshall pretty much nails it. There was no consensus. Even as someone who leans pretty hard toward being an inclusionist, I've got to say that the keep !votes were on the weak side. But even then, a delete outcome was probably outside of admin discretion. The arguments were reasonable, if weak, and there are sources that maybe count as independent and reliable. The numeric outcome was close and while the delete folks, IMO, had the stronger argument, it can't be said there was a consensus here. I think NC was the only possible outcome. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: You do also agree with SMarshall that no precedents should be gleaned from it, right? pbp 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't really precedent-based and certainly one close doesn't create a precedent (though bringing it to DRV for such an overwhelming endorse does create a stronger case that the close has consensus...). We work via policy and guidelines with a bit in the way of "common outcomes". Personally, I disagree with the closer and think the delete side had the slightly stronger case as I at least partially buy the lack-of-independence argument here (but wouldn't agree that Saint Mirin suffers from the same problem). However, NC is the right outcome and the language of the close with within discretion. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion may have been headed for a "no consensus" close, but I have to agree with those above that the closing statement (and subsequent defense of it) were fucking atrocious poorly thought out. BHG is right about the closer dismissing certain arguments based on his own preferences rather than their strength and relation to policy. I'm also not thrilled that Iridescent gives so much grief to Purplebackpack89 who, though badgery and ranty stayed pretty much on topic, and gave a free pass to people who made wholly inappropriate insinuations of religious intolerance. Finally, from reading Iridescent's talk page it's clear that he fell into the trap of conflating independence with accuracy, or at least is a little hazy on the distinction, despite everything those o the delete side said to explain the difference. So on the whole I'd say overturn to delete just to explicitly repeal the bad close. A borderline and crappy article isn't worth setting bad precedent over. ReykYO! 22:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close – well-reasoned close. It does indeed depend on whether the Deseret News is sufficiently independent of Octaviano Tenorio, which IMO it is. Others disagree. Oculi (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, or at the very least consider a one-off with no bearing on policy, guidelines or precedent: I'd go so far to say the nominator’s close was uninformed at best, and a biased supervote at worst. Three reasons why:
He essentially unilaterally attempted to create a specific notability guideline that doesn't exist. There is no SNG in writing that says that all Mormon leaders are automatically notable. A majority of participants in the discussion said that there either wasn't and/or shouldn't be said SNG. There was also an attempt by the creator of the Tenorio article to try and institute said SNG here; there is a solid consensus against instituting said SNG. Neither discussion produced anything approaching consensus ‘’for’’ an SNG.
The close, and in particular comments made by the nominator on his talk page here, indicate a lack of understanding of the difference between reliability and independence. It’s never been argued that Deseret News is unreliable, and never needed to be. We were arguing that Deseret News was not independent from the organization from which Tenorio draws his notability. A solid majority of the participants in the deletion discussion who weighed in on the question of sourcing said that Deseret News wasn’t independent, regardless of its reliability. A side discussion on the independence was started by somebody else here; a majority of participants there also agree that Deseret News is not independent of Mormon leaders. It certainly cannot be interpreted in future AfDs that this AfD resulted in a consensus that Deseret News is independent of the LDS church and its leaders, despite what the closer and keepists might say.
Comments within the close, as well as comments and here, indicate that part of the motivation for the close was motivated by an attempt to be punitive toward me and other deletionists rather than ignoring all noise that occurred from either side and focusing on policy arguments. The fact that he even brought it up in the close, and brought it up one-sidedly instead of considering misdeeds of both sides (chiefly baiting by one of the keepists) suggests that the closer did not come to the discussion wholly neutrally. Or, to put it another way, what Reyk said above about giving me a lot of grief while giving a free gave a free pass to people who made wholly inappropriate insinuations of religious intolerance.
Conclusion: that closing the article as anything but delete was likely improper, and that using this article as precedent to create SNGs or sourcing guidelines (which in turn could be used as justification for keeping or restoring other articles) is even more improper. pbp 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that on Iridescent's talk page was the first time I've ever seen anyone describe a "no consensus" as a supervote. I suppose it would be possible for the closer's own personal opinion to be "no consensus", if they had some kind of multiple personality disorder or something, but that's an unusual allegation and I think it'll be a difficult one to sustain.—S MarshallT/C 23:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm calling it a supervote is because he used his close to try and write policy/guidelines without a consensus to do so, and if this DRV affirms anything, I want it to affirm that there is no specific notability guideline and there is no consensus that Deseret News sources are considered "independent" in the context of LDS officials. pbp 23:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I see that SMcCandlish has expanded that essay enormously since I last read it. Wow. I think those expansions were mistaken, because when any type of bad close is a "supervote", the formerly-useful term "supervote" is reduced to a synonym for "bad close" that doesn't even save any keystrokes. After this DRV is over, I intend to revert that.—S MarshallT/C 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Given the arguments and the thoughtful closing statement, I can't see any other way this could have reasonably been closed. In particular I find the arguments about the Deseret News being unreliable due to its ownership to be quite unconvincing, unless it can be shown that the church is actively interfering in its editorial policies then such views should be discounted, as they correctly were here. Lankiveil(speak to me) 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Lankiveil: like so many others, you are confusing the GNG test of independence with the separate questions of bias and reliability. None of us here is any position to say either way what degree of editorial restraint or direction the LDSC places on its newspaper, but that is not the issue in dispute. As sole owner of Deseret News Publishing Company, the LDCS has the power to set whatever direction it likes for its product. Regardless of whether it exercises that power, the existence of that control is not independence. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I understand the argument that you are making, but I'm afraid that I just do not find it at all convincing. Unless there is some evidence that this "control" is actually exercised then we're talking about a hypothetical possibility and I don't see that as good enough to rule the whole newspaper out. Coming back to the AFD discussion in question, it appears that enough of the participants were also unconvinced of the argument that a no consensus close was proper. Lankiveil(speak to me) 00:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Lankiveil: the closer's job is to assess whether the argument was founded in policy, and then weigh the strength of support or opposition. What happened in this case is that closer fundamentally misunderstood the argument being made by those seeking deletion, and on that basis described it as unfounded ... and therefore didn't weigh the support. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Didn't you at one point dig up the editorial and advertising policies of Deseret News and find that they were bound to not go against the policies and teachings of the LDS church? @Lankiveil:, that's why I don't trust the independence of Deseret News. Also, we're not "ruling the whole newspaper out". All we're saying is that it can't be the thing used to establish the notability of Mormon officials. I'm still saying it can be used to source statements...if articles on Mormon officials also have non-affiliated sources in them to address notability. And it can be used to establish notability AND source statements of anything that isn't Mormon-related. pbp 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I posted here[2] about the editorial policies, complete with link. However, I was surprised by the requests for such info, and wonder if I was right to post it. When A is wholly owned by B, the proposition that A is independent of B is an extraordinary claim which requires some solid evidence. I didn't see any evidence from the keepists to support their extraordinary claim. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse simply because I cannot see any more discussion on the matter reaching a consensus. Leave it a while, if need be get broad discussion going on what counts/doesn't count as independent etc. The stuff about SNG is not totally incorrect, the old statement "policy is descriptive not prescriptive", it's what we do (not withstanding certain constraints from the foundation level). If we always blocked someone after 1 revert (say) it wouldn't matter what WP:3RR says, our policy would be 1 revert. Now I don't wholly agree with the closing statement, and I don't believe that the general way we deal with religious figures etc. can be expressed quite so simply, there is a lot of potential nuance criteria which may or may not be applied to determine what's in/out, but without developing that on a fairly broad and neutral basis, I would suspect we are going to have cases like this which are just going to boil down to disagreement or no consensus if you prefer. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse That debate did not reach a consensus and therefore the result was proper. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - "No consensus" was the actual result of the debate, if the more than 2 score badgering comments by the nominator and 30 by another deletion-desiring editor are sifted out of the mix. The only other possible option would be an Overturn to Keep, since the argument against Deseret News — the largest daily newspaper in the largest city in Utah* — is independent of the subject of this article, a high functionary in the Mexican section of the Mormon church, and GNG is met if this source is rightfully allowed. The bitterness of this debate over this barely debatable point indicates that there was probably some ulterior agenda coming into play here; those interested in putting two and two together can do their due diligence. Carrite (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) * Addenda: I checked on this. The Tribune has a larger daily circulation by about 20K, but the News has more than 50K pdf subscribers. The point is: it's an authentic, large, major metropolitan newspaper of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Reply to addendum] It's quite extraordinary that after all this debate, some keepists are still trying to pretend that the issue at stake is reliability. Between AFD+DRV, there must be several dozen posts stressing that the case for deletion is based on the other pillar of GNG: independence. What's going on here? The distinction is not complicated, and if there is a good faith explanation for this, I'd like to hear it. As to the notion that circulation is some sort of indicator of quality ... are you serious? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an allegation to make against people who disagree with you, you should have the decency to state it explicitly. ReykYO! 09:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations that those advocating deletion had an ulterior motive were a repeated feature of the AFD. They peaked with a series of explicit allegations of religious bigotry by the article's creator, which were eventually redacted. It is sad to see these smears being repeated at DRV. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tenorio as a General Authority was a wolrd leader of the LDS Church. He may have mainly had specific assignments to oversee the Mexico Area of the Church as one of 3 men serving in the presidency, but his calling and assignments were on a global basis. He spoke at the internationally boradcast, published in the all official magazines of the Church in all languages they publish in, general confrerence. General Conference talks are looked on as more authoratative than any statements in other meetings, unless these other statements are also published in Church magazines. Tenorio while a general authority was a world leader of the LDS Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For once, I agree with JPL. In this case he has usefully demolished Carrite's attempt to cast Tenorio as some of distant regional officer who had no connection to the LDSC's wholly-owned subsidiary. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though if he really was important, there would be ample sourcing aside of Church publications. pbp 15:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fifth sentence of WP:N starts, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as...importance... Unscintillating (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was kind of my point @Unscintillating:. Determining notability DOES depend on things such as independent sources, which the article doesn't have. pbp 23:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: Just because a lot of people read the Deseret News doesn't make it independent of the LDS Church. There are news stories on Deseret News' website that are verbatim copies of LDS press releases. It may be reliable, but reliability ≠ independence. pbp 17:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
quasi-arbitrary edit break
Endorse. Sigh. I tried to read through the whole AfD. I read most of it, and skimmed the rest, but I just couldn't force myself to read every word. In any case, it's clear that there's deep disagreement between the two camps here. The nose-count is pretty even, and I see reasonable arguments being made on both sides. That is the essence of a lack of consensus. Beyond that, we're being asked to pass judgment on the exact wording of the closing statement, and declare whether one sentence establishes a precedent or not. That is clearly outside of the scope of WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, questions of whether a close sets a precedent clearly are outside the scope of DRVPURPOSE... but that's a rule that DRV has occasionally temporarily set aside in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, e.g. here and here. I think it's right that we discuss that occasionally, because there does need to be a venue where editors are allowed to raise questions of precedent, and if not here, then where? I don't think there's a place better suited than DRV. Yes, okay, I'm saying that there are precedents for saying there's no precedent. Irony? Oxymoron? Idiocy? I'll let you decide. :-)—S MarshallT/C 17:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. There seem to be two issues here:
Are sources with a narrow scope suitable. My first thought is No; if only the LDS (or, LDS-owned media) is writing about an LDS official, then that's not enough; we need to see them being talked about in the wider world. Same for any religion. The Pope is notable because everybody writes about him. The Archbishop of New York is notable because I see articles about him in the NY Times and other lay newspapers (but, to be honest, I'm having trouble finding coverage in papers which are neither related to the Catholic church, nor based in the NYC area; I don't see The Times of India, for example, writing about Cardinal Dolan). But, then, let's take a topic such as Delaunay triangulation. or 74181. All the sources for those articles (and, all the likely potential sources I can imagine) are in technical literature. Does that make those sources inappropriate? As Tevye would say, I'll tell you... I don't know.
Then, we're being asked to rule on the statement, if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability. I'm inclined to say that's a stretch, but, sadly, I'm finding it hard to say that. I'm convinced it shouldn't be enough. But, as an observation on current practice, it, unfortunately, appears to be true. Does that mean that stating that in an AfD closing makes it law? I think not. But, then again, have I just argued Delaunay triangulation off the Pedia? I hope not. But, I see Tevye hiding in the wings again.
@S Marshall:, I hope this has clarified my position to you, as much as your comment above has clarified yours to me. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's crystal clear, thanks. I'm not even remotely qualified to evaluate questions of religion. I'm copiously, radiantly, sumptuously ignorant of everything God; I'm a secular humanist born to secular humanist parents; nobody in my family, in living memory, has believed in a deity, got married in a church, or been buried in holy ground. I've never uttered a prayer. I've never read the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book. I am sooooooo clueless about this it's unreal.
But I could ask myself:- "Can a no-consensus close of an outlier AfD set a precedent on Wikipedia?", and the answer was immediately obvious to me. And I think it's helpful to articulate that in this case, because the filing party was specifically and, I think, quite seriously, concerned about setting precedents.—S MarshallT/C 17:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The Closing reflected good reasoning. Beyond this "major religion" is not just a measure of religious size. It is a measure of religious body influence. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will on some world maps be one of 10 designated religions. Utah is the only state in the USA where a majority of the Population is a member of a specific religious body, and that religious body is the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. Beyond this, LDS form majorities in north-east Nevada, eastern Idaho, south-west Wyoming, and also I believe parts of eastern Washington. In all of Nevada and Arizona and Idaho as well as eastern Washington State there are significant numbers of Latter-day Saints. Not appearing on world maps but equally important, almost half the inhabitants of Tonga are Latter-day Saints, and well over 10 percent in Samoa and French Polynesia. If New Zealand is not over 10% it is close. The attempt to argue that they are not a major religion by numbers alone ignores that religions are more than just their members. The LDS Church has cultural, political and other impacts beyond the members. The arguments that the Deseret News can not be counted involve much too loose a definition of what is and what is not an indepedent source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are 15 million Mormons doesn't mean this one passes GNG. And @Carrite: just because a lot of people read the Deseret News doesn't make it independent of the Church that owns and controls it. Please take a look at the links BHG provides above about the strong connection between Deseret News and the LDS hierarchy. pbp 15:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn while I haven't attempted to read the whole discussion, the closing statement is fundamentally flawed and should not be held up as the result of that discussion. Its two points both seem to me unfounded: The argument that LDS sources are too closely connected to the subject was dismissed for being too tenuous a link, which I don't see at all. The subject holds a senior management role in the organisation which owns the publications in question. It's entirely plausible that this situation might lead to the publication being overly deferential to that organisation or to the publication giving undue prominence to the organisation, which is why we ask that articles be based on independent sources in the first place. The situation is analogous to The Times being used to support the notability of a senior executive working for News Corp. Whether you agree with this argument or not it is at least reasonable, and the degree to which this compromises the independence of the publication should be decided by the participants, not imposed by the closer. The other point was that if a major Christian denomination considers something to be important then it should be presumed to be notable, which I think is unfounded. The closer didn't cite any supporting evidence for this view, there are no relevant subject specific notability guidelines, and the only suggestion I am aware of (WP:CLERGY) specifically doesn't mention LDS clergy. If a major denomination considers something to be important then it is likely that the numerous scholars specialising in that denomination will have written about it, which is why such things tend to be notable. If the subject here falls into this category then it should be possible to demonstrate that they meet the GNG. Hut 8.5 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The closing does not contain the word "important". Unscintillating (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, I was paraphrasing. The exact words used make no difference. Hut 8.5 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The close has fundamental errors.
The admin has substituted their own personal definition of what is an independent source for what is in Wikipedia guidelines (WP:BASIC) and what is dictated by common sense. As I stated in the AFD (and was unrefuted) this "...concept of independent would have us use the press releases of companies touting their latest hire as proof of notability." Expanding, many major newspapers have "Appointment" sections where companies tout their latest hires. Even though these newspapers are more independent from these companies than Deseret News is from the LDS Church, we still wouldn't accept these announcements as primary indicators of notability. As such, "discounting those delete arguments made on this basis, it's clear that there's no consensus for deletion here" is a fundamental mistake.
The statement "if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability" is quite noticeably bereft of diffs, links, or any other kind of evidence that this is anything other than the admin's opinion. The admin then goes on to provide an example - Saint Mirin. However it took me about five seconds to find a source not owned by the Catholic Church. [4] The admin confuses neutrality with independence and has created a WP:SNG by fiat, without gaining consensus from the community.
These are two arguments used by the admin to reach a finding of no consensus. Both are incorrect. --NeilNtalk to me 03:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As per almost everyone else here. Clearly no consensus and reasoning given both reflects the discussion and current keep/deletion practices. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: Per the above and per this. Clearly there is no consensus and the longer the debate goes on, the more heated it is getting. I think about a six-month moratorium on bringing this article up again would also be good. The wiki will not break if it stays live for a while. Montanabw(talk) 22:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, or change to keep ' My personal view about the article is an unqualified keep: We've always kept LDS people at this level, on about the same basis we've kept RC bishops. And for religious figures I try to be inclusive in the case of doubt, to avoid the possibility of bias. But a NC close is reasonable, because of the strong opposition and disagreement on the appropriate interpretation of guidelines. Guidelines are meant to be interpreted, and the decision on how to interpret them is left to the community, not the closer. The consensus here was to interpret them to keep the article. The proposition that we do not have the right to interpret guidelines or even use IAR is opposed to the fundamental principles of WP. We make the rules ourselves, and we make the interpretation. We have the freedom to make any rational interpretation for a given article, except where it runs counter to Foundation policy as for copyvio. The person appealing is trying to say that their interpretation of guidelines is the only correct one. Nobody has the right to say this. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ DGG: that's an outrageous misrepresentation of my case for this DRV. You have inverted by position with that of the closer. I agree that guidelines are for the community to interpret, and the whole basis of my appeal is that the closer substituted his own interpretation of them for that of the community discussion. Here's what I wrote: the closer fundamentally misinterpreted the arguments they were supposed to weigh against policy ... and inserted their own view rather than weighing the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, first, I waas replying to NeilN, a little above. But @BHG, I think the community discussion was possibly inconclusive, which is a reason to support the NC close. I also, with respect to you comment below to JClemens, do view the COI claim for COI about the same way he does. I'm not LDS, and I've always supported LDS hierarchy at this level, but normally not lower levels. And similarly for other religions; I normally interpret notability arguments over religious (& political) figures & groups in a relatively favorable way in cases of doubt, to avoid even the possibility of bias. To avoid the need to discuss bias, I don't always say so, but it's how I think about them. DGG ( talk ) 14:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for notifying me of it. I repeated the argument there in more general terms. But even if that should be the decision, there is still noconsensus at the afd. Any afd can make an exception to a general rule. And I certainly see no consensus behind the assertion that LDS related sources are not sufficiently independent. I think it a little absurd to say they are not, but it is true there was no consensus on that. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep the argument that mutual LDS affiliation between an admittedly RS and an article subject impairs independence of the RS'es smacks of anti-Mormon bigotry. AGF'ing that that's not the case, it remains simply a bridge too far. Once that argument is dismissed as specious, we're left with nothing but a keep option. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: Woo. Smear-time big-time here. You dismiss the conflict of interest as "specious" (synonym for deceptive), despite the fact of its existence being undisputed — only its significance is contested — and despite the fact that evidence of the lack of independence from RSs was posted both at AFD and above.[5] And as to the first part, that's a very sleazy trick, raising the flag of religuious prejjudice, and then withdrawing it. If you are AGFing, why raise it? If that's the sort of approach you want to take, then I'll break from my usual standards and try it back at you: the airing of an unevidenced suggestion of religious prejudice accompanied by a denial of the existence of evidence smacks of a sleaxy, lazy, dishonest bit of muckraking from some ulterior purpose. But I'll AGF that's not the case. </haveityourway> --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The attacks on the Deseret News advertising policy that you engaged in to try to prove that it is not notable enough, added to the attacks on the reputation of BYU, definately have a combative, denigrating tone that makes it easy to see why bias is seen. In the case of the Deseret News, the fact that it will not run advertisements for liquor and other items that violate the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not at all relevant to its news reporting decisions and seems to indicate a desire to negatively portray the paper by any means neccesary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, you choose to cast every piece of evidence as an attack. Sadly that use of the cry-bigot card has been a consistent feature of your participation in these discussion, and it is a disgraceful way to behave in consensus-forming processes. For example, I posted[6] evidence of LDCS restraints on academic freedom at BYU ... and your response[7] was not to engage with the evidence, but to accuse me of irrational bigotry[8], and a a bigotted attack on the reliability of the sources[9]. You followed that up by asserting that Reasoned critiques do not include attacks on the academic integrity of an institution[10]. In other words, actual evidence is inadmissible if it points to answers you do not approve of. As to Deseret News, there is plenty of direct evidence of LDCS influence over its editorial policy, e.g. what I postedhere.[11]. But no matter how such evidence is presented, your consistent response has been not to discuss the evidence, but to repeatedly engage in vicious ad hominem attacks on anyone presenting it. That's the JPL approach: smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking the integrity of BYU is figting words. BHG does not even know how to properly appreviate The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LDCS makes no sense at all. She ignores the fact that coverage of LDS subjects by the Salt Lake Tribune isalways suspect. The Salt Lake Tribune acted as the support to the denial of Mormons the right to vote in the past. JC Clements truly bigotted attack on the LDS Church should have no place here. To call it either "racist" at its formation, when Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Able to the priesthood, or "mysoginistic" when Joseph Smith admitted to the highest rites of the Church women, when Utah granted women the right to vote in 1870, only to see the federal government (with Salt Lake Tribune support cheering it on) deny this right, and so on, just shows how willing people are ton incorporate and allow irrational hatred of Mormonism to stand. Much of the discussion above ignores the fact that A-editorial politcies are not the same as news gathering policies. B- the articles in question are not regurgitations of press releases. The Church News articles and Ensign articles written on the same people at the same time are very different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, I approached you at the AfD with total good faith and respect. Your immediate response included the words, "You fail...", diff. In that same diff, you said, "In fact, the paper's own statement on its Editorial voice is explicitly biased towards religion." Yet the word "bias" does not appear on that page. This "bias" is presented as a fact, but it appears to be an opinion. Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, please try to read my post as a whole, rather than taking words out of context in the hope of being offended by them. And, no, that page does not use the word "bias"; but what it does is to explicitly express its support for a particular sets of values, which are those of the religion which owns it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a statement of "explicit" "bias", and the claim that such is a "fact" is not verified. Unscintillating (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, you have been around sufficiently long enough to remember the times I've stood up for the rights of religious minorities, including during my time on Arbcom. I don't have to believe that the religion in question has any merit whatsoever to extend due consideration and respect to it, and, for the record, I do not find anything compelling about Mormonism other than as a study in how a misogynistic and racist cult started by a semi-literate con man can transform itself to gain mainstream acceptance. I bring that up only to note my perspective as a disinterested party, who neither participated in the AfD nor who routinely watches LDS topics. Thus, while anti-Mormon prejudice, which is entirely a real phenomenon, is a sufficient explanation for several users' conduct, there is no compelling evidence of such. This leads me to the conclusion that while anti-Mormon bigotry may be present, the arguments against the topic should be addressed on the basis of their merits, rather than motivation: independence does not require a non-LDS source to cover an LDS individual to establish notability, even assuming for the sake of arguments that every disputed source can be considered LDS in character and mission. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is even an option, but endorse outcome but overturn the rationale. If that isn't an option, overturn to allow a new close. The result was defensible, but the rationale was not. Say a company owns a newspaper and they publish an article about the editor-in-chief. That's clearly not independent, and I don't think anyone would argue about that. This close provides some extra distinction to religious organizations and the media they control that simply isn't written into any policy or guideline. Discounting opinions based on that argument was seriously flawed. The keep arguments based on the degree of independence are reasonable and shouldn't be discounted (which is why I support the outcome), but they certainly are not strong enough to discount the entire deletion argument based on existing policies and guidelines. "If a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability" is simply not supported by anything in our notability guidelines and it makes this look like a supervote. Note that I supported deletion. ~ Rob13Talk 23:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and possibly consider creating, at this point, Octaviano Tenorio Wikipedia article controversy... it's a reasonable close because 1) Octaviano Tenorio is clearly somewhere in the borderline area, depending on how broadly you define "independent of the subject" and other things, and 2) the headcount is fairly even I think, and 3) peripheral matters favor keeping the article, besides which the closer took the time to explain what he was doing, which kudos. By all means let the delete camp marshall its arguments and come back again in six months, hopefull this time a bit more succinctly.
As to the "set a precedent" thing, beyond the notability rules we have our common sense as human persons, and WP:IAR if it comes to that. Giving no special to any particular church or other organization: if you have someone who is just on the borderline of Wiki-notability by our (imperfect human) rules, but is clearly important and influential in the world -- a mover and shaker, does important stuff, not just a borderline D-list actor or failed novelist etc. -- and on whom there is plenty of clearly reliable material to write a reasonable article, should any of that matter for pushing the person over the borderline. I don't think it's madness or idiocy to at least ask that question.
Call it the Mycroft Holmes Rule. If Mycroft Holmes existed and did what he did (ran the British government behind the scenes, remember) but we could only dig up borderline-level coverage (he's very private), should we have an article on Mr Holmes or not? People may at least reasonably differ on that questions. Herostratus (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the fact that Tenorio never had any direct over-sight functions over the Deseret News needs to be born in mind. The very broad definitions of connection claimed by some here ignore the fact that he was not directly over the Deseret News.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really germane to this case. The argument being made is that the Deseret News is so heavily influenced by the church that it wouldn't print anything negative about a senior church figure and thus can't be considered a neutral source, not that Tenorio sat there writing the articles himself. ‑ Iridescent 16:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and kudos to the closer for taking on what was sure to be a thankless and controversial task. There was no consensus in this discussion, and so a NC close was the only sensible outcome. As a side note, I would have been afraid to !vote "keep" in the AfD because of the intimidating behavior of some of the participants on the other side. Thparkth (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from original closer. I stand by the comment in my close which appears to be causing the most controversy. The General Notability Guideline is not Holy Writ, and Wikipedia deletion practice right back to Nupedia days has been based on the implicit assumption that "if a significant number of people are likely to consider the topic important, it's generally important enough to warrant an article provided one can be written", which is why we have so many articles on villages sourced only to the local authority, politicians sourced only to the government of which they're a part and so on. This isn't "unilaterally creating a new notability guideline", it's a straightforward statement of how Wikipedia functions; if you do want to elevate WP:GNG to policy status, that would be a massive cultural change and would require a widely-publicised project-wide RFC. However, that's irrelevant in the context of this particular discussion, since even if one discounts every argument, the straight headcount in the AFD (when one discounts the multiple delete votes from PBP) is 9 "keep", 10 "delete" and one "merge", which is pretty much a canonical example of "no consensus", so the only issue up for discussion is whether so many of the "delete" arguments are based on an invalid premise that the AFD should actually be closed as "keep". Regarding "setting a precedent", the mind boggles at the notion of how a single discussion could set a "no consensus" precedent; if there were a large number of similar nominations, all of which resulted as "no consensus", I suppose it could be argued that it would set a precedent that it's not worth discussing such things since it's impossible to reach a consensus, but we certainly aren't at that point yet. ‑ Iridescent 16:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: You have a habit of exaggerating my actions and mentioning my behavior in places where it's irrelevant. At the same time, you down-play the low-level attacks by JPL and other keepists, who tried to tar BHG and I as bigoted. There were no "multiple delete votes". There was one nomination and two comments urging the closer to reject the bad votes that you accepted. Both comments are identified as nom comments (one said "says nom" in bold and the other says "nom comment" in bold) and only a fool would confuse them with actual votes. It's blatantly clear from your comments both in the close and on your talk page that you were influenced in your close by trying to punish me and BHG in some way. I, for one, find that lack of neutrality unfortunate. Also, nine? There were eight keep votes. Finally, if you're prepared to ignore GNG in any kind of volume as an AfD closer (particularly in favor of a statement that is neither a policy nor a guideline), I consider you unfit to be an administrator. pbp 19:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug—I'll leave it to others to read the AFD and judge your conduct for themselves. As for "trying to punish me and BHG", I've never encountered you before in my life, and you can ask BHG—with whom I have a history of working going back a decade, and was my de facto mentor when I first joined Wikipedia—how likely I am to have a secret agenda to punish her. ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, Herostratus, Montanabw, Namiba, Steve Quinn, Cullen, Carrite, Oculi, Unscintillating =nine. As for "unfit to be an administrator", I'm sure you know how to find Arbcom. I'll point out in passing that I count three current or former arbs in this discussion, all of whom are disagreeing with you. ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If you don't want me replying to your comments, don't mention me in them. You're again trying to make this about editor behavior when editor behavior is wholly irrelevant. pbp 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that people have said they would have avoided !voting "keep" based on how PBP and BHG treated those who did so, I think editor behavior is worth noting. When attempts to defend the scholarly intergrity of BYU Studies Quarterly are met with shooting "Bob Jones University", the tone is totally out of line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hate editing huge blocks of text so I'm inserting another edit break
If you'd just closed the AfD as no consensus with a rationale along the lines of "opinion is evenly divided and both sides make reasonable points" then I think you would have got a much more favourable reception. Instead you chose to leave a closing statement which ruled that the arguments of one side were significantly flawed without much to back that up. I can certainly see this setting a precedent, at least with this article. If someone renominates the article for deletion in the future and uses any of the arguments raised in favour of deleting the article this time, then the response is going to be "but the last AfD found that those arguments are wrong, so we can ignore them". That will substantially change the course of that discussion. Hut 8.5 21:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that often weighs on my mind when I'm closing a complicated discussion. I will often start out writing a long essay, but then I think of back a few such closes where all I managed to do by writing a lot was to give people something to hang me with. If you keep it short and sweet, that's less likely to happen. I'm not saying that I'm encouraging people to keep it short, just pointing out the reality of things. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to wrong forum, with directed advice for implementors to implement the centralized discussion forum for redirect/merge discussions Note that I was a participant in the Afd and that my viewpoint here overlaps my position in the AfD. The AfD closer continues today to make unusually in depth and helpful analysis, including the longstanding concept that, "if a significant number of people are likely to consider the topic important, it's generally important enough to warrant an article provided one can be written". But as per current policy, this AfD did not need to be decided on whether the topic needed a standalone article. The only question that needed to be resolved in this forum was, "is there sufficient due weight for this topic to be a significant topic in any article on Wikipedia; to which BHG said (01:52, 18 July 2016), "he would still be mentioned in the list article." If editors really want to have such nuanced discussions about whether Tenorio should be standalone vs. merged to the list article, root cause analysis of the problem at this AfD says that it would help to have the centralized redirect/merge discussion forum. Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the current list examples are hardly worth mentioning. One example is Koichi Aoyagi who we used to have an article on. The list merely mentions when he was called as a General Authority, when he was given emeritus status and his age. It does not mention even his nationality. There might be room for creating what amounts to short biographical articles, but I see no reason to reduce us from the information we currently have in the article, to loosing any mention of even the most basic information on Tenorio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aoyagi was closed as WP:DEL7, not WP:DEL8, so in spite of many similarities, does not compare easily. And whether or not you or I like the idea of a notability debate starting on the heels of this AfD, this AfD is not binding on the issue of wp:notability, because the remedy for an absence of wp:notability is redirection or merger, and the forum here is "Articles for deletion". AfD's closed without using admin tools are not binding on subsequent content disputes, partly because AfD volunteers are not superior editors who know more about content considerations than the content contributors, and partly because an AfD closure does not bind an administrator into ongoing supervision of a subsequent content dispute. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close That's as clear a "no-consensus" discussion as I ever saw. (Unless that's an oxymoron or something). Any overturn could only be to keep, per DGG. I also reiterate the point made above that admins who put on the waders and actually close these discussions for us, once they have devolved into bickering as far as this one had, deserve our thanks. Begoontalk 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Once the keep side rejected the contention that Deseret News is not independent of the subject, the delete case collapsed under the weight of policy. It's understandable delete voters might feel hard done by, as their case was relatively well founded in logic and evidence, much stronger than typical deletionists arguments. Clearly Deseret News is less independent of LDS leadership than say The Spectator is of conservative MPs. Yet Deseret News was not shown to have been directly controlled by the subject as an individual, so keep voters were free not to make their own interpretation as to whether it counted as independent. I've seen many an AfD with a far weaker delete cases still result in the loss of articles. Thank God we had resolute keep voters in this case, and one of our best admins to close the AfD. If it had been accepted that a topic has to get "substantial coverage in a reliable source which is not part of their own team." , that would have been a terrible precedent, opening the door to article destruction on a biblical scale. Also echoing everything just said by editor Begoon. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
