Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reyna I. Aburto

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) 12:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reyna I. Aburto

[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 in independent, reliable sources consists of name checks. The mostly primary sourcing available in searches and in the article does not serve to establish notability, and much of that only consists of name checks and passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I think, in time, there may be more significant coverage, but right now I don't think there is enough to satisfy the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wugapodes (talk • contribs) 17:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep We have three sources from papers in 3 different reporting regions that mention Aburto that are totally independent of her. This alone passes GNG. Also she is one of the 3 leaders of a major organization. If that is not enough there is this https://utahvalley360.com/2018/07/19/sister-aburto-shares-story-of-tragedy-hope-and-conversion-to-lds-church-in-video-series/ 4th source from a 4th urban area that is discussing Aburto in another context. There are clearly enough sources to justify having this article. Then here https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/06/05/im-just-average-says-new-mormon-womens-leader-but-god-can-make-the-ordinary-extraordinary/ is another SL Tribune article speaking of her. There are clearly enough sources to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The sources listed in the !vote directly above do not qualify the subject as meeting WP:BASIC at all.

[1] is a primary source consisting mostly of an interview. Primary sources consisting mostly of interviews do not establish notability.
[2] is a short article that consists of two passing name-check mentions about the subject.

Not even near meeting WP:BASIC per these sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are not adequate for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Keep in mind that WP:GNG can be satisfied by sources that exist, not just sources that happen to be online and already used in the article to support a particular citation. Instead of arguing over each LDS General Authority, however, it might be useful to have a cutoff above which they're presumed notable; and I think member of the General Relief Society presidency would be above a reasonable cutoff. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @DavidLeeLambert: What kinds of offline sources do you think would exist on this particular person? I can only imagine publications by the LDS, but I don't have an intuition of what kinds of independent secondary sourcing would exist on her in this position. Perhaps newspapers that don't have an online presence, or magazines that don't have all their articles online maybe? I agree that the position seems important, but given the kind of coverage online I have a hard time coming up with sources that wouldn't just be more routine coverage. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment neither source I gave above was a primary source. The first was a clerly secondary report on the publication of interviews with Aburto. The source itself is not the interviews. The source is a secondary source about the interviews. The second is a fully indepdent article that does a lot more than name check. It was built around the actions of the Relief Soceity General Presidency on the grounds that there actions are inherently notable. Aburto is seen as so notable in some circles that we have this [3] Deseret News article entirely devoted to reporting a talk by her. I think a reasonable agreement would be that anyone who has given a talk in LDS general conference is notable. This [4] article in the totally indepdent of Aburto Exponent II shows that this talk was widely impactful. A lot of this seems to be driven by a refusal to recognize well researched articles in the LDS Church News and the Ensign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a difference of opinion over the interpretation of WP:BIASED. Sources affiliated with religious organizations, or declaring a religious commitment, can sometimes be the most rigorously researched and vetted by writers and publishers, and therefore may be among the most reliable for religion-specific information. But notability within a religious context does not necessarily map onto Wikipedia notability. Adding unaffiliated sources helps establish general notability for the subject in addition to notability within the religious context. In this case, the concern seems to be that LDS-owned newspapers and magazines, or blogs with explicit religious commitments, may well choose to cover a subject based on religious affiliation, and therefore only support one point of view on the subject. But that concern is easy to address as long as the subject is generally notable, since other sources will be out there to widen the range of perspectives. Bakazaka (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We have rpovided sources from newspapwers in Salt Lake City, Ogden and St. Geroge that are not at all LDS owned. So the claim that Aburto is only covered in LDS linked sources is not born out by the provided sources. The Utah 360 link is to a source that seeks to cover the generally notable facts to residents of Utah County, it is not a religion-related source. Exponent II may be LDS culture linked, but it is not linked to the LDS Church, and to ban sources because they are related to LDS culture would create a bad precedent in lots of ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 31 July 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.