Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ángel Abrea

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. Sandstein 16:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Abrea[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)

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Virtually no coverage found at all in independent, reliable sources, other than a couple of fleeting mentions, which are nowhere near significant coverage. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability outside of the LSD Church. Den... (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History does not come even close to having articles on most general authorities, but it has one on Abrea. Then there is this source [1] and this source [2]. These make enough to show a passing of general notability guidelines. I am suspecting there are other sources in Spanish that discuss Abrea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. Primary sources such as these are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is now how primary source is defined. It is a work editoed by three academics. Therefore it is either a secondary or tertiary source, it is in no way a primary source. Your attempt to define it as such is a grosse misuese of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History should be treated as a primary source. Primary sources are usable to verify information, but are not usable to establish notability. As a tax-exempt religious organization, the LDS Church avoids directly owning for-profit ventures, because this would threaten its tax-exempt status, so it uses the church-owned Deseret Management Corporation as a holding and management company to own and manage for-profit ventures, one of which is the Deseret Book Company, which publishes the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History. It's all highly interrelated with the LDS Church. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. North America makes sense to me. The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History should be treated as a primary source. Another way of seeing it, this publication is not and cannot be an independent source. The same criteria applies to similar publications, for example, the SDA Encyclopedia. Imagine if we would use this resource as a secondary source simply because it is written and edited by scholars, with Ph.Ds and years of publishing experience. It simply cannot qualify. Otherwise, we should reproduce it almost entirely here in WP. In other words, we should either merge/redirect or delete this article. It does not satisfies WP:N. Den... (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep = The LDS Church has more than 16 million members. This is a larger population than many sovereign nations. It seems akin to holding a national legislative position. Additionally he is the first from Latin America to hold this position, which adds to his influence on this substantial movement. How is this not encyclopedic? It seems that a reader wishing to know more about LDS history and culture would seek encyclopedic information about Ángel Abrea. This isn't some garage band who sold 200 copies of their album, or a pastor of some local congregation. Regarding the source, if it were Abrea who were writing about himself the it should be discounted, but should we eliminate sources about Nebraska written by Nebraskans who may love their State? It the book is known for promoting it's subjects, then fine. But if it is known for biographical entries about highly influential people in one of the largest, most significant religious movements of the 20th and 21st centuries, then it is a useful resource. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:57, 5 November 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.