Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octaviano Tenorio (2nd nomination)

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. The previous AfD raised issues around what is considered "independent" sourcing for notability, but did not reach consensus. This AfD raises similar issues, but there is neither sufficient participation nor sufficient agreement to resolve them. RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Octaviano Tenorio

[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)

Several WP:BEFORE source searches are providing no evidence of this subject meeting WP:BASIC. Searches are providing affiliated (non-independent) sources and primary sources, but finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I supported keeping this article in the first AfD three years ago. I explained my reasoning in great detail at that time, and feel the same way today. I encourage people to read that debate and the closing statement carefully before coming to a decision. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. p b p 13:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple indepdent reliable sources, such as the Salt Lake Tribune article, the section from Hearts Turned to the Fathers and others. Those pushing for deletion are using a far too broad criteria to exclude far too many sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is actually said about Octaviano Tenorio in the Salt Lake Tribune article, though. It is mostly about ARTURO Tenorio, who found himself in hot water a few years back. The only mention of him is: His brother, Octaviano Tenorio, was a member of the LDS church's First Quorum of the Seventy. The Salt Lake Tribune article fails the WP:NOTABILITY's mandate for significant coverage. p b p 13:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Salt Lake Tribune article only has a one-sentence mention of the subject. This certainly is not significant coverage, and does not qualify notability. Passing mentions are not significant coverage. This is not an overly broad interpretation of notability guidelines to exclude sources, it is an accurate and correct application of guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in the Tribune does in fact add a smidgen of notability; the article mentions him because he held a major position in the Church, and names the position, so it is an independent source on the fact that he held that position. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, though, is that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. The subject may be an important person in the LDS church, but passing mentions do not qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that footnote 6, an article in the academic journal BYU Studies Quarterly, see the discussion at RS Noticeboard entitled "Are university presses legally affiliated with the Univ. independent of the parent ORG of the University?" This scholarly journal is WP:INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock Rollidan (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2019 (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.