Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fernando R. Gómez

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando R. Gómez[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)

Not finding much independent coverage in reliable sources about this subject; specifically, there's a lack of significant coverage in non-primary, non-LDS related sources. As per source searches for said independent coverage, the subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Several primary sources exist about the subject, but they are not usable to establish notability. See also: WP:SPIP:

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.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on possibility of WP:AUTHOR notability: Article was a bit vague on his publications, so I added bibliographic entries to help clarify what the titles in the article actually refer to. He has 2 other publications in WorldCat (click the identity at the bottom of the article). Like the works mentioned in the article they are published by the museum and held in very few collections, basically BYU and a few others. Bakazaka (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gomez has merited significant mention in multiple articles in the Journal of Mormon history, an indepdent scholarly journal. Excluding that source does not make sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Journal of Mormon History sources were added after the nomination for deletion occurred, not before. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit to having done sub-standard work in searching out sources. Does this mean you also agree to withdraw the nomination since your central claim has been shown to be incorrect?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not at all. My deletion nominations always exceed the suggested source searches at part D of WP:BEFORE. Furthermore, The Journal of Mormon History sources added to the article do not show up in Google Scholar searches.

Lastly, below is a review of the The Journal of Mormon History sources that were added to the article:

[1] – Consists of a review that the subject performed about another person's work, concluded with a very short "about the reviewer" passage at the end of the review. This does not provide significant coverage about the subject whatsoever, and does not qualify notability.

[2] – significant coverage of a non-notable series of four articles that the subject authored, and various matters the subject was involved in in Mexico.

– Thus far, only one independent, reliable source providing significant coverage exists. Please note that WP:BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, not just one. Unless more said required sources exist, the subject simply does not meet WP:BASIC. Also, again, WP:SPIP comes to mind. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am quite impressed that User: John Pack Lambert is going for a Keep, as he normally goes for delete at these discussions. Vorbee (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Vorbee: Your !vote does not provide a valid rationale for the article to be retained. Commentary about how another user !votes in various discussions states nothing about the subject that this discussion is about. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thank you Northamerica. Fair enough comment. Vorbee (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Appears to be a highly notable person within the church. Church News seems to be a good enough refernce, but it is marginal. Middledistance99 (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Middledistance99: Church News is owned by the LDS church, and is the official newspaper of the LDS Church. As such, it is a primary source that does not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability. Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article without said independent coverage, because there is no guideline or policy that allows for presumed notability for Mormon subjects. North America^1000to 10:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, although the primary reference is still a good source of info. Clearly 3 independent sources have not been found, but the admin will have to see whether or not this is a problem which needs to be solved by deletion. Middledistance99 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gomez has no high position of leadership in the LDS Church. I think the argument that a widely circulated News Paper is always a primary source based on who its publisher is, and we then use this to disqualify any articles from that newspaper to add towards notability is a much too large carve out. To call some newspaper primary sources and some secondary is a misuse of the terms. Gomez has no control over the production decisions of the LDS Church News.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: mostly known for the museum, so I think this article can combine both. Here's some coverage from The Salt Lake Tribune: "Provo museum showcases Mormon history in Mexico". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 3 September 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.