Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos L. Pedraja

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 04:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos L. Pedraja[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 does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to minor passing mentions and name checks. Primary sources found in source searches do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WThere is no reason for WP to publish an article of someone who has no notability outside of the LSD Church. No independent source. Nothing extraordinary. Not even a publication or news that may have made a dent in the secular, ecumenical, interfaith or even interdenominational circles. Keeping this entry would simply means that WP has been hijacked by a religious organization to serve as a vehicle of propaganda. Den... (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history is not a primary, but a secondary source. This whole nomination is built around discrediting contributions by some people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 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 do not serve to establish notability. This nomination is built around having a discussion regarding the subject's suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia, nothing else. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per NA1000's assessment of the source's lack of independence. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, there is no good evidence for meeting WP:GNG. Producing independent sources would offer a much more compelling argument than accusing the nominator of acting in bad faith. Willing to reconsider if such sources appear. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 20 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.