Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudio R. M. Costa

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 redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio R. M. Costa

[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)

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The primary sources in the article do not serve to establish notability, and WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks, passing mentions and brief quotations from the subject. Not finding any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See also: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For several years he was head of over 1 million Mormons in Brazil. Also as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy he was among the top 22 leaders of the LDS Church. I am sure we could find some additional articles with a good search of Portugese SSources. However there are multiple mentions in articles in the Salt Lake Tribune.03:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)

Comment – @Johnpacklambert: Could you provide some links to the Salt Lake Tribune articles that you mention? I've only found very brief, passing mentions and name checks that do not serve to establish notability. Also, subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability. Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article without said independent coverage, because there is no guideline or policy that allows such presumed notability for Mormon subjects. You state that Portuguese sources are likely to exist, but without providing any examples here, it's essentially a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument that lacks qualification via proof of said sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a notice about this disucssion on the talk page of the Latter Day Saint movement Wikipedia project page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I mentioned a short while ago in another deletion discussion, the problem is that the leaders of the LDS Church are notable primarily because of their service in the Church. If they did not or had not served in those assignments, they as Church members would be no more notable than I am. And again, I recognize that there needs to be some standard of and accountability to ensure that such subjects meet Wikipedia's notability standards and have sufficient independent sourcing. That said, as I also mentioned elsewhere, I am working towards finding the right place to talk about establishing an exception which would apply to the notability of general authority seventies, but have not been able to get anywhere, and have merely been repeatedly redirected to what was supposed to be a "more relevant" location to have that discussion take place. Additionally, am I the only one who is dumbfounded by the fact that in my decade as an editor here, the deletion discussions for such articles have only become a "thing" here on Wikipedia within the last couple of years or so, especially since the notability and reliable sourcing standards have not, to my knowledge, changed all that much during that time? I would therefore again respectfully request that this deletion discussion (and those relating to the deletion of any other articles about general authority seventies) be put on hold while I try to work through the channels I have available to establish notability. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't view the present status quo regarding notability guidelines as a problem at all. The guidelines were created based upon consensus regarding what is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also, I don't view Wikipedia as a repository for every person in the world that has received significant coverage only in primary sources. There are other websites and resources available for those that do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Also, I do not want to place this discussion on hold at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recognize and support the evolution of policy over the years. But most of the policies under which articles such as this were originally created have not fundamentally changed within the last decade, so if an article was not a problem then, I don't see why that should be the case now. I also did not in any way intend to imply that every person in the world who is given significant coverage only in primary sources should have an article here on Wikipedia, and apologize if anything I have said has been interpreted as such. That said, for a religious denomination that has 16+ million members worldwide, and is recognized as the fourth (or even third)-largest religious denomination in the world, there should be a similar (but certainly not identical) policies establishing notability for full-time leaders of this Church. And again, through no fault of my own, my efforts to try and establish such an exception have me running around in circles. It is certainly up to you whether or not to halt the discussion on this nomination. Either way, I will continue to do what I can to find the right place to have the discussion that many editors have agreed needs to take place to establish notability standards. And again, if the consensus opts for deletion, I will accept that decision (whether or not I personally agree with it). But it seems to me that continuing the deletion discussion for such articles may be somewhat disingenuous if earnest efforts are being made by myself and others to resolve the concerns that led to the deletion nominations to begin with. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same issues and arguments as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcos A. Aidukaitis (2nd nomination). Daask (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies. 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. Sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS and do not count toward establishing notability. Even with the large amount of text in this discussion, no independent sources have been produced to support notability claims under WP:GNG. A sensible alternative to deletion is to redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies, where information on the subject is already provided. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 19:51, 25 August 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.