Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos H. Amado (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos H. Amado[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 to meet WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks and faint passing mentions in independent, reliable sources. The article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability.

The one independent source is listed second in the references section, the 2005 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac. Unfortunately, there is no link, so it's depth of coverage cannot be immediately determined. Despite this, multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one, and various source searches are providing nothing usable to establish notability

The first listed source in the article's references section is from the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History, which 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History is a primary source is just plain rubbish. We do not exclude published encyclopedias from being sources because of who their publisher was. The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History was edited by 3 respected academics, and should not be ecluded as a source based on who its publisher was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – a book published by a publisher that is owned by an LDS-related holding company, the latter of which is wholly owned by the LDS Church equates to a primary source, in my opinion. It's also important to keep WP:SPIP in mind, some of which is listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your opinion is built to exclude articles on LDS related topics at a very high rate. The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history was edited by three respected academics. Over and over editors have rejected your attempts to use ownership to exclude all sources. This has happened with BYU Studies, the Deseret News, and in the same way should apply to The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History and many other sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History should be treated as a primary source, and has nothing to do with any other Wikipedia content. 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 04:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I neither know about LDS organisation nor do I particularly care. Because LDS is a religious group with unorthodox beliefs, it has little contact with mainstream Christianity. This means that almost anything published about LDS is going to be published by LDS-related organisations. The only other material is likely to be things critical of LDS, i.e. with an anti-LDS POV. There is a case for arguing that the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is not an independent source. WP's objection to WP:OR is that it is liable to be unreliable, even the editor's invention or perhaps exaggerated. I used to see WP articles based on an old Catholic Encyclopaedia. Inevitably its editors would have been Catholics and promoting a Catholic POV. We have an article on almost every Anglican bishop in UK and elsewhere and have concluded that such bishops are notable per se. We need someone who understands LDS hierarchies to decide what is the equivalent level to Anglican bishops in the LDS church. I have never seen the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History, but my guess is that it is the equivalent of a specialist biographical dictionary. We accept people in (British) Dictionary of National Biography as almost automatically notable. Even if the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is not independent, I think we should trust it to be promoting the truth about LDS history and WP may need to accept its editor's judgments as to which LDS leaders are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here are some discussions in which editors have considered exempting LDS leaders from the WP:GNG in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Note that the consensus has not been in favor of such exemptions, though there is a large range of opinion and arguments. One of the most interesting features of the (many) recent AfDs for LDS figures is the wide variation in results. It seems that, in practice, an LDS leader's notability within the church is not a good predictor of their notability under WP:GNG. To me this suggests updating WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES with empirical data to guide future decision making. Bakazaka (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it is worth, most of the articles in the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History are non-biographical. The articles through Amado are "Aaronic Priesthood", "Elijah Able", Angel Abrea, "Academies" covering academies operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Activities Committees", Adam, discussing him in the light of LDS theology, Adom-ondi-Ahman, "Law of Adoption, "Africa", "Agent", "Alabama", "Alaska", "Albania", "Alberta, Canada", Amanda Inezs Knight Allen, James Allen, and Almanacs. On the issue of the Catholic Encyclopedia (and also the Encyclopedia Judaica among others), not only have they been used as sources, we at times had many articles that incorproated text from these works verbatim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I align myself near to Bakazaka’s arguments and applaud any efforts to revise and update WP:CLERGY. I can’t understand why would “Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops, are typically found to be notable.” For me, individuals who have achieved notability and preeminence within a church or denominational universe but has not crossed over to the interfaith realm or trickled down into the Modern secular society should not pass WP:CLERGY, let alone WP:GNG. Regardless of the way it was looked at before, I think that today we would find considerable agreement with the argument that bishops from any denomination do not have automatic clearance into WP. It often happens, however, that wherever any of these denominations comprise a critical mass, their bishops tend to have an oversize influence in the society at large. Each case, then, should be evaluated individually. Moreover, the Catholic Encyclopedia is gradually being considered here as an unreliable or primary source, and its articles about individuals with skepticism (see here and here). But as I have said someplace else, if we would consider the Encyclopedia of LDS History as a secondary and independent source, we would have to do the same with the encyclopedias of any other denomination even when the individuals in the articles have no relevance outside of their religious communities. Even when this publication may or may not be an official mouthpiece of the organization, its intention is to focus on topics of interest primarily to its members (the CE, in contrast, tried moving beyond its own territory). Also, the fact that the Encyclopedia of LDS History has been written by bonafide scholars or that it includes articles on history, theology and sociology (and any other academic “.gy”) should not count as reasons for us to consider it a secondary source by default. Of course, there must be cases where it would serve as such, but that would not be the norm when the topic has stayed only within the church’s coverage. Most denominational encyclopedias have or are being written by teams of distinguished scholars too. Ultimately, the attempt here is to keep WP from becoming an extension of any religious organization and thus maintaining the religious & secular worlds (i.e., church and state) interrelated yet separated. It is for the best of everybody. Just ask Roger Williams. Den... (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is flawed both in that it does not properlry understand how these denomination specific works are created and the whole argument basically says religious life is not important and should be ignored by Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Saying that my argument is flawed does not make it so. If you re-read my comments you may notice that I am not discounting religious life at all. On the contrary, I want to make sure that non would take preeminence over others. My main point regarding this particular entry is that for any religious leader to appear in Wikipedia it should transcend its religious community. That's it. No more. No less. That is the premise in WP:CLERGY. And even when I am not fond of how it privileges the title of bishop I can understand that it assumes that a religious leader of that stature is sure to have made an impact in the community at large too. And even so, there are some here that discount the title. This particular case, for example, was about to be deleted regardless of the broad coverage it had. Pay attention well as to how the guidelines also keep "bishops" of lesser denominations away from WP:

"People listed as bishops in Pentecostalist denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third-party coverage. Clerics who hold the title bishop but only serve an individual parish or church are typically considered the same as local pastors or parish priests."

And yet, it makes sure that "Heads of large, Protestant denominations are generally found to be notable," a position that Russell M. Nelson occupies in the LDS (note: some do not consider LDS a Protestant denomination and LDS themselves often see themselves as a step further from it: here, here and here). Perhaps in the revisions to the WP:Clergy we should include a clearer treatment of the LDS. Nevertheless, until then and unless proved otherwise, Amado has not achieved this status nor has he gain notability outside of the LDS Church. Den... (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 29 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.