Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Dyches

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy J. Dyches[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no sources independent of from where he draws his notability (the LDS church). Similar poorly-sourced LDS articles (Lino Alvarez) have been redirected, but the article's creator instited on fighting this rather than accept a bold redirect. p b p 04:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A member of the top leadership of the LDS church consisting of 106 people. Referencing of biographies of religious leaders often relies on sources published by subsidiaries of those religions. Such sources can be presumed reliable for information about their top leadership, in my judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to fight the redirect, but one major policy of Wikipedia is that major changes (such as the deletion or redirection of an article) are done by consensus. By automatically redirecting this article, you violated established Wikipedia policy. I couldn't let that happen. I maintain that all articles about general authorities are relevant. I agree there is no such thing as "temporary notablity," but I believe that all general authorities who have served in the past, as well as all those who are currently serve and may yet serve in the future, are notable because they hold a prominent place in the LDS Church. I believe such notability lasts even after their release (in the case of Second Quorum members) or demise (in the case of all other general authorities). Just because an article only has LDS-related sources is no reason to single it out for deletion. I understand (and even accept) the concerns expressed about GNG, but at the same time wonder why, instead of simply deleting or redirecting these articles, you don't make an effort to improve them. It seems to me that all Wikipedians' time would be better spent in working together to produce article that adhere to all Wikipedia policies than they would by subjecting articles to deletion discussions simply because they don't meet all Wikipedia policies. Again, no one is addressing my concern that it seems that only the articles I have started are being subjected to deletion discussion while other are allowed to remain because they were started by others. To be unfairly thus singled out has to violate some Wikipedia policy, I'm sure. As to my reasons for wanting this article kept, Dyches currently serves as a member of the Central America Area presidency of the Church. This area, along with other South American and African areas, is experiencing substantial growth, and Dyches plays a role in administering to the units that are so growing. Dyches is also a renowned ear, nose and throat surgeon. In this capacity, he has helped thousands, if not miliions, of patients with their ENT issues. His service in the Church has been widespread. These facts alone make him notable. I would probably be less upset if articles about other Second Quorum members that I have not started were submitted for deletion. I have made my case for keeping this article. This will likely be my only comment. Again, I will accept the voice of the consensus, whatever that may mean for this article. In the meantime, I would encourage all editors involved to keep the conversation civil, assume good faith, and not be patronizing or overly critical of someone else's POV. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgstokes:, This is about the fourth or fifth time I've had to point out to you that it is acceptable to BOLDly merge or redirect content (it is also acceptable for you to revert BOLD merges or redirects). Please familiarize yourself with BRD. And with GNG. I nominate articles for deletion without regard to who created them; some are created by you, some by Johnpacklambert, and others by completely different editors entirely. You created a lot of Second Quorum articles, which are the ones I have nominated for deletion. The manner in which I nominate Second Quorum articles for deletion violates no Wikipedia policy. I nominate these 1-2 a week so you have time to fix them; I believe to be unfixable and have no interest in or obligation to fix them, so I choose not to. It is not sufficient enough to say, "He did X, Y, Z, so he's notable", if he was, he'd have some third-party coverage. p b p 15:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is a major religious leader. The sources here establish this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't, because none of them are reliable, independent sources. As, such, he fails GNG p b p 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Straightforward application of WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NielN's reason. I found no significant independent coverage of the subject, just coverage in Church publications. Per Jgstokes' suggestion that he's a renowned surgeon who has helped thousands or millions of patients, I could find no evidence of this; I turned up only one paper that he co-authored, and no independent RS coverage of his medical renown. Per John Pack Lambert's suggestion that Dyches is a major religious leader, even if he were, guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people) do not exempt religious leaders from needing independent coverage to establish notability. Agyle (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no inherent notability inherent in being one of 106 authorities of this particular organization. Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. If there's significant coverage in multiple reliable and INDEPENDENT sources, it should be identified. Edison (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not reaching WP:BASIC, which (as I've stated elsewhere, such as the recent WP:ENT#1 conversations) should be, in my view, required for all, or nearly all, BLPs. That having been said, I think the keep here votes approach a concern that may need to be raised more broadly. WP:CLERGY (which is an essay, part of COMMONOUTCOMES) suggests that bishops in the RCC and Orthodox churches are usually found notable. I don't know if that's correct (it might not be), and the parallels are imperfect, of course, and if it is correct, I don't know if it is simply because bishops and GAs receive different amounts of coverage, but if there is an underlying systemic bias issue here, a broader discussion (at NPERSON, the village pump, in an RfC, etc.) might be warranted, as individual AfDs get relatively little participation. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the references in the article are to church publications, which do not meet the definition of reliable, independent sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2014 (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.