Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan A. Uceda

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. There is consensus to delete as the provided that the sources presented do not qualify this person for an article. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juan A. Uceda

[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)

Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject falls well short of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, and does not meet WP:BASIC. The first two sections below consist of a source summary per the present version of the article (diff):

References section - Six of the sources are primary, which are not usable to establish notability. The remaining four (reliable) sources consist of:

[1] - A single sentence stating, "Elders Vinson, Teixeira and Godoy will replace Elders Craig C. Christensen, Lynn G. Robbins and Juan A. Uceda effective Aug. 1."
[2] - an extremely minor mention, "...and in comments from Elder Juan A. Uceda, of the Seventy" along with a quotation, "“A moment of prayer is a very, very sacred moment,” Uceda said."
[3] - Very brief minor passing mentions, consisting of a total of three sentences.
[4] - A two-sentence announcement and fleeting proclamations from the subject, with sermon-like opinion.

Further reading section - Of the six sources present, five are primary and only one is independent, and that source ([5]) only provides a single passing mention, "A class on preparing for temple marriage and group testimony meeting concluded the day along with words of inspiration from Juan Uceda, formerly an Area Seventy in Peru who now serves in the stake presidency in Caldwell, NJ."
Source searches are providing the same, name checks, fleeting passing mentions and not much else. For example:

[6] - Single sentence
[7] - A single sentence announcement and a single sentence consisting of a quote from the subject.
[8] - single name check in a list

None of these sources provide in-depth, significant coverage about the subject whatsoever. It's all very meager routine coverage, announcements and quotations/sermon-like content. As such, per Wikipedia's deletion policy, this article should be deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same reasoning as already discussed for Julio E. Davila. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contrary to the above there is actually coverage that is unquestionably 3rd party, indepdent, secondary and significant all at once such as the Salt Lake Tribune article. The sum total of the coverage is a clear indication of notability. Cnsidering the level of covaeage we actually have on many of the Catholic bishops we have articles on, often just one listing from a directory blog, the fact that these articles on Area Presidents in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a postion at least as significant as a atholic bishop, get nominated for deletion when they have multiple indepth articles as sources some of which are cases of significant, 3rd party indepdent secondary source coverage, looks very much like a case of animus motivating the nominations. I also see no evidence that people have scoured Spanish-language sources either in Peru where Uceda was first a leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or in Central America where he is currently a leader, for potential sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source is an article from the Deseret News, it is not from the Church News, it is written by Tad Walch. This nomination is built on the false assumption that Tad Walch becomes a non-secondary source because of who his employer is. He is a legitimate journalist and this attempt to treat his intentionally written article in a major regional publication as other than an indepdent, 3rd party reliable source is just out of line. This nomination is built on a false creation of equivalency etween ownership and editorial control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – Actually, I included the Deseret News source in my source analysis atop. Notice how I worded in the nomination, "The remaining four sources consist of...", in the context of first presenting the primary sources. Then, directly below that is my synopsis of the Walsh source, which consists of the following single sentence regarding the subject:
    Elders Vinson, Teixeira and Godoy will replace Elders Craig C. Christensen, Lynn G. Robbins and Juan A. Uceda effective Aug. 1."

So, no, you are incorrect, I have not disregarded the Deseret News source, not at all. Rather, I included it in my analysis of the "remaining" sources, meaning non-primary. Also, this is not significant coverage, not even near. To avoid further potential confusion, I have added "(reliable)" to my nomination (diff). Sorry, but your analysis of my nomination directly above regarding the Deseret News source is entirely incorrect, and extremely assumptive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if we accept the unacceptable exclusion of the Deseret News the article has 2 sources that are clearly from indepdent, 3rd party sources and provide enough coverage of Uceda to justify an article. Besides the Salt Lake Tribune article I mentioned above there is an article from the Provo Daily Herald. These are both significant regional newspapers that are indepdently owned and operated that there is no way to consider in any way other than indepdent from Uceda. This is clearly enough to meet the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added two more sources on Uceda from indepdent, 3rd party secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, what's missing is actual WP:SIGCOV. We need more than a sentence or two, or quotes, or articles where Uceda is obviously the source (e.g., the one about his speech at the opening of the Temple where comments form the newspaper is interspersed with quotes from his speech). FOARP (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Additional source analysis, per the two sources added to the article (diff, diff).

[9] - A verbatim quotation from a news release from the LDS Church (link), where the subject is talking about another person:

“Elder Soares has been opening many doors for us,” Peruvian general authority Seventy Juan A. Uceda said in a news release. “Some of our presidents know us a little bit. Once Elder Soares is there and talks to them about what we are, what we are doing for the country, the people, the society, there’s a different attitude, and I feel that.”

[10] - Two sentences about the subject, consisting of an announcement and the subject's personal views, that he's happy that a temple construction has commenced:

Presiding over the ceremony was Elder Juan A. Uceda of the Quorum of the Seventy and president of the South America Northwest Area Presidency of the LDS Church.

"Heaven rejoices because we are starting to build a temple," Elder Uceda said. "There are no coincidences in the time of the Lord. This groundbreaking ceremony coincides with the 50th anniversary of the establishment on the church in Colombia."

Sorry, but none of this comprises significant coverage about this subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. There's enough out there. Fullrabb (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Fullrabb[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough coverage of this to demonstrate notability. --Micky (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is a summarized table of available sources that are not primary. I find myself in agreement with FOARP, where they state above, "what's missing is actual WP:SIGCOV. We need more than a sentence or two, or quotes, or articles where Uceda is obviously the source...". Myself, I get the feeling that folks may be seeing all the links and saying, "Wow, look at all that coverage" to justify keep !votes such as "there's enough out there" and "I see enough", but could potentially be ignoring what is actually stated within the articles, which really isn't much. None of the coverage provides significant coverage, not in the slightest. The subject continues to fail WP:BASIC, and the article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources, because secondary sources are providing insufficient biographical information about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Deseret News article		No. A one-sentence passing mention.	✘ No
Daily Herald article		No. Two short quotes from the subject in two short sentences.	✘ No
The Salt Lake Tribune article		No. Minor passing mentions consisting of a total of 3 short sentences.	✘ No
The Progress article		No. Two short sentences and two quotes.	✘ No
The Progress article		No. Extremely brief minor passing mentions.	✘ No
Mormon Times article		No. A one-sentence passing mention.	✘ No
The Salt Lake Tribune article		No. A one-sentence passing mention in an image caption.	✘ No
KSL article		No. A one-sentence passing mention and a one-sentence quote.	✘ No
ABC4 article		No. Two sentences consisting of quotations.	✘ No
The Salt Lake Tribune article	Lifted and printed verbatim from a LDS church news release (link).	No. Short quotations, all about another person.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The above charat takes a far too strict view of what is substantial coverage. Considering how many articles we have on Catholic bishops with the only sourcing being a directory style blog, as in one source on the article from the directory style blog, the fact that Ucade who has been preaident of three areas, a position roughly equavalanet to a Catholic bishop by a whole slew of considerations, gets nominated when we have so much coverage including two full fledged biographical articles, is not a sign of evaluating articles on the merits of their sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This nomination is specifically about Juan A. Uceda, not another person or group of people, such as Catholic bishops (WP:WHATABOUTX). None of the available coverage in independent sources provide substantial coverage, including those found in WP:BEFORE searches. That's why the article qualifies for deletion, because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NA1K's GNG analysis. If there are Catholic bishops who have articles but don't have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about them (and don't meet some SNG), that article should be nominated for discussion. We are not discussing some other article and some other person, but this article and this person. Since the subject lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about them, they should not have a Wikipedia article. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NA1K's GNG analysis. Clearly no SIGCOV here, but even the collection of mentions are very minor, and too brief to add up to an alternative to SIGCOV. Solid fail of GNG I'm afraid. Britishfinance (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2020 (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.