Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José A. Teixeira

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

José A. Teixeira[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 does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks, short passing mentions and quotations from the subject such as this, none of which establishes notability. The primary sources in the article and found in searches also do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep General Authority Seventies are significant leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The article has more than enough sources to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Subjects are not given a free pass for an article based upon their position in a religious organization; notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Below is a synopsis of the sources in the article, which except for one, are all primary sources.

Ref 1 – Primary source published by the LDS church
Refs 2–7 – Primary source published by Church News, which is owned by the LDS church
Ref 8 – Has two name checks for the subject. This is certainly not significant coverage.
Listed source 1 – Primary source published by Liahona, which is owned by the LDS church
Listed source 2 – Primary source, Church News

Also note that per 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 21:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018), so the subject has to be evaluated under WP:GNG. Other than a single minimal mention used to verify a date (Deseret News), sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS (Church News, Liahona, lds.org) and do not count toward establishing notability. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources, only the usual passing mentions in event announcements and brief quotes reprinted from church sources. The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. A sensible alternative to deletion is to redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where information on the subject already exists. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an extension of any religious organization. As with others in similar positions (see here), this entry fails to meet the minimum requirement for an entry (WP:GNG). This is a good example of why WP should be protected from other than vandalism and disruptive editing. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 16:14, 2 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.