Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augusto A. Lim

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. Those arguing to keep this article have not convincingly refuted the arguments presented against all of the sources produced so far. Vanamonde (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto A. Lim

[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 minor name checks, quotations and passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a general authority Lim is viewed as an arbiter of doctrine in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have added more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is no guideline or policy that provides presumed notability for religious subjects or leaders, including Mormons. Subjects that the LDS church considers to be noteworthy are not automatically notable as per Wikipedia's standards. The sources added to the article consist of this passing mention which simply states the subject's name and this passing mention. Minor name checks such as this are not significant coverage, and do not qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not responded to my most recent addition. I also remind people we have indepth coverage but you chose to set up the rules to ignore it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding those new additions, this contains one sentence about the subject, and this appears to be a passing mention. This is not significant coverage, and does not qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately the only indepth coverage I can see is in LDS sources, and as he's an official of the LDS church, they aren't independent. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search in Google Books show significant coverage about the subject.[1][2][3][4] Rzvas (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Ensign, an official Mormon publication, has what appears to be an official biography. Otherwise, I see no sources with even moderate depth. Rzvas's first two sources are passing mentions. The second two appear to be different legal discussions of the same event involving a check which Lim deposited or some such. Without the actual book, I presume there was a notable lawsuit involving Lim's check, but it doesn't seem likely to substantially improve Lim's notability. Daask (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources provided above by Rzvas are passing mentions, and do not provide significant coverage about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One more endorsing Daask's comments on Rzvas's sources. Doubling down, even. The first two are probably about this Augusto Lim, but are trivial mentions - one mention of the name in each whole book! The last two aren't even necessarily about the same Augusto Lim, since all they say is that this is a man who was somehow involved in a law case. --GRuban (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to General authority#General authority firsts. Proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, and 2017), so the subject has to be evaluated under WP:GNG. For establishing notability, WP:GNG eliminates sources that are not independent under WP:IIS (Ensign) or not WP:RS ("Grampa Bill") from consideration. The sources that have been added in this discussion or mentioned above include routine or trivial mentions of the subject, do not reach the level of significant coverage, and in two cases are not verifiably about the subject of this article at all. Additional search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources, only routine coverage of church announcements and a few Deseret News pieces that are verbatim reprints from the official Church News and therefore not independent coverage under WP:IIS. There are some LDS leaders that pass WP:GNG, but this isn't one of them. Redirecting to General authority#General authority firsts, where information on subject is already provided, is a sensible alternative to deletion. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:05, 6 September 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.