Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge F. Zeballos

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 per the arguments that the coverage (while RS) fails our primary/independent criteria for GNG. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge F. Zeballos[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Jorge F. Zeballos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to short passing mentions and name checks. The primary sources in the article do not serve to establish notability. North America1000 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Willthacheerleader18: Can you provide even one reliable source that provides independent significant coverage about the subject? I have found none after several searches. North America1000 12:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it is really not enough to say that a subject "seems" notable enough. On English Wikipedia, notability for subjects whom are not presumed notable by various notability guidelines must have had received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. "Seeming" notable enough does not mean that the subject is actually notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 20:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first two sources under references are both well written enough and indepdent enough of the subject to pass any reasonable test of reliability. Zebellos has no direct control over the creation of LDS sources. I can find Catholic bishops with way less sourcing, but the clear consensus is all Catholic Bishops are notable. General Authority Seventies of the LDS Church are at least at an equivalent level. Since the subject is from Chile, unless people have demonstrated indepth study of Chilean sources, then the argument to delete is weak. This bascially is built on a notion that LDS related sources cannot support LDS subjects, which is an absurdly over broad blackout method. I am not sure exactly what this source is but I found this Spanish source [1] that gives a full bio of Zeballos. I cannot say how much it fulfills our reliability test. I also have added another source to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I understand this link [2] it is within the normal Deseret News and not the Church News, and shows a general view of this paper that readers feel a desire to read reports on major addresses by Zeballos.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The first two sources under references in the article are published by Ensign, which is an official periodical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Ensign is a primary source that does not serve to establish notability at all. Biblicomentarios.com is a blog run by a person named Pablo Marichal Catalán, and is not a reliable source. The Deseret News source listed above consists almost entirely of quotes from the subject, with very little information about the subject, and is essentially an editorial written by an unnamed person, as the article does not even have a byline. This source does not provide significant coverage. North America1000 20:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The members of the Quorum of the Twelve rely heavily upon the members of the Seventy for assistance as they minister worldwide. Zeballos will remain a general authority of the Church until his 70th birthday, which means he will be in the public eye of Church membership between now and then. And while the Deseret News does publish and distribute the LDS Church News, the staffs of the two newspapers are separate and distinct in purpose and function. The office of Seventy could be said to be comparable to that of Catholic bishops, priests, or cardinals, as their ministry has a similar scope in terms of authority and responsibility. While there may be a lack of independent sourcing for Zeballos, that should pale in comparison to the fact that his role as a leader of the Church is significant, and that those who share the office of seventy are second only to the apostles. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Subjects that the LDS church deems to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards, and Mormon subjects are not granted presumed notability in any of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. North America1000 20:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below is a source review. Where is the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to qualify an article? 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 04:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the Notes section

Sources in the References section

Sources listed above in this AfD discussion

  • Biblicomentarios – A blog published by "Juan Pablo Marichal Catalán (JPMarichal)" – Not a reliable source
  • Deseret News – Consists of quotes the subject has stated. There's no biographical information about the subject here, just a bunch of quotes and some unknown person's editorial interpretation of those quotes. The article does not even have a byline. Also, this does not constitute significant coverage. When omitting quotes from the subject, content written about him consists of four sentences. This is not in-depth coverage.
  • Delete or Redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). Even religious organizations and members have to pass WP:GNG. Church sources are absolutely usable for finding good information about the subject if notability is already established. But WP:IIS is clear about independence. Coverage in official LDS publications such as Church News or the Ensign does not establish notability for church leaders, any more than an in-house magazine for a large corporation covering the appointment of a vice-president would establish notability for that corporate employee. The comparisons to Catholic bishops are inaccurate. The Catholic Church has over a billion adherents worldwide vs. about 16 million for LDS. A more accurate comparison would be between LDS and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. And even Catholic bishops are not automatically notable, though AfD discussions typically find they meet the notability guidelines, according to WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. Of course it is possible that Wikipedia guidelines are biased against denominations whose leaders do not get significant attention outside the church. One alternative would be to redirect the individual article to the higher-level entity that is already accepted as notable, and discuss the individual there. For this article that would mean a redirect to Seventy (LDS Church), which I would also support, but it looks like the subject is not currently mentioned as one of the noteworthy members in that article. Bakazaka (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not for a minute believe that the treatment of LDS general authorities is anything like the treatment given to articles on Roman Catholic bishops. Here is an example of what probably the majority of articles on Roman Catholic Bishops are like Christopher Shaman Abba. Now tell me that the article on Jorge F. Zeballos is anything other than several times superior to that article. Show me the last time any Catholic bishop article was nominated for deletion. Then tell me this process is in any way fair or balanced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The using of ownership to disqualify well-researched, balanced articles on an individual seems to be a way to wipe out articles on people who have in fact received significant coverage. A fair assessment of the tone and creation methods of the biographies published for new general authorities in especially the Church News would should them to be both indepth enough and indepdent of the subject enough in their formulation that they would qualify as indepdent sources. University newspapers are allowed as sources. The only thing they are generally banned from is showing notability of university grads. That is not what it is being used for here. The broad brush of disqualifying sources is just being used too broadly here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A source can be reliable in a narrow area but not independent and therefore not a usable source for determining notability or significant coverage. That is the situation with Church News and Ensign. They are probably reliable sources for one perspective on LDS members, organizations, and issues of concern. They can be reliable sources for factual data, like biographical details or sermon contents or the timing of church announcements or the church's official position on someone or something. But Church News and Ensign are not independent per WP:IIS. The point of WP:IIS is to make sure independent sources confirm the notability of article subjects. That should be possible for notable individuals. If it isn't possible, then that means reconsidering the subject's notability under a different policy, not changing the definition of an independent source. Bakazaka (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: LDS leaders have become somewhat of a paradox as far as Wikipedia is concerned, which is especially true for general authority seventies. The fact is, with a few exceptions I can think of off the top of my head, the only reason they are notable is because of their service as high-ranking leaders in a Church whose membership is 16+ million strong. If these men (and women) were not serving in these general capacities on a global level, then they would merely be among the lay membership of the Church, which would make them individuals that would certainly otherwise not be notable. But the fact that they are called to so serve, and often do so through extensive worldwide travel and other assignments through which they minister to the global membership of the Church. Therein lies the difficulty. Because they may be nothing special or significant in the eyes of the world outside the Church, there is insufficient coverage in sources that are not directly related to the Church. With that in mind, I have been invited previously to request that some kind of exception to Wikipedia policy might be enacted for the purpose of establishing notability without needing sources unrelated to the Church, which, as I said, are sparse at best. But wherever I have been referred, I have inevitably been referred elsewhere, and it is always the insufficient coverage that becomes an obstacle. The question is, if insufficient coverage is sufficient enough grounds to propose an article for deletion, where is the line drawn? There are certainly a number of other articles related to the Church and its' leaders which, by that metric, would be subjected to deletion. That is why it gets discouraging and a little aggravating for me to participate in such discussions. As a Wikipedia editor, I know that regulations are meant to be followed if an exception to them cannot reasonably be made. But as a member of the Church who recognizes how significant the service of such individuals is to the welfare of the Church and its' members on a day-to-day basis, I do sometimes wonder if there is anything more that can be done on my end to conclusively establish the notability of such leaders. If any of you have any suggestions in that regard, above and beyond what I have already done, I would welcome the chance to hear those. Thanks.--Jgstokes (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the oddest consequences of Wikipedia policy is that a person or organization can do good and difficult and interesting things (and/or bad, easy, and horrible things) but not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, even if their work affects millions. This is as true for, say, scientists at the frontier of research, or developers who write the safety software for nuclear facilities, or engineers who fly around the world keeping production lines running, as it is for church leaders. Some LDS leaders and members have clearly met the requirements to be notable under Wikipedia guidelines, so the answer to "how do we establish the notability of church leaders" is already known. Being diligent about including those who are notable under Wikipedia's policies seems like the right response, so no one who is notable is left out. This article's subject does not meet those requirements, but others might. Bakazaka (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article without having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, because there is no guideline or policy that allows for presumed notability for Mormon subjects. Subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 20:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. I really beat the bushes on this one, in Spanish and English. I did find an additional mention in Deseret, he attended the "dedication of the Cordoba, Argentina Temple", Swensen, Jason. Deseret News, 24 May 2015. But it's just not enough. Except for Deseret, all references are Church publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Daask (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per NorthAmerica, Daask, and E.M.Gregory arguments. Even if we were to apply to the LDS folks the catholic WP:NBISHOP essay, the GNG is still not satisfied by independent reliable sources. I really like Jgstokes argument of how some policies may have to change (I have certain personal views for instance, and would love to make all bishops inherently notable), but the current policy does not allow us to make an exception. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:30, 23 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jorge_F._Zeballos&oldid=856218686"