Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amador Tajanlangit


 * 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. As pointed out, this can be revisited is he *is* actually beatified, but at the moment the coverage isn't there. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Amador Tajanlangit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

According to references provided in the article, the subject has not undergone the most basic steps of becoming a saint— i.e., his case is not yet a cause nor a petition for a cause but a prayer for a cause. Sources discussing the subject are either directory listings or primary sources or lack broad coverage (i.e., are local news only). KDS4444 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep -- A candidate for beatification, nominated by a bishops' conference, was probably notable in his lifetime; and notability is not temporary. However, I am unfamiliar with the process and do not know how many nominations are successful.  If it were only a small proportion, my view might be the other way.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think we can assume that candidates for sainthood are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A good-faith assumption, but being "nominated" for sainthood is like being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I  can nominate Necrothesp.  All it takes is a stamp and a piece of letter paper. See my next comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * delete He is listed at Candidates for sainthood, (only a fraction of the names on the page are bluelinked,) but he does not appear on the Congregation for the Causes of Saints list, where everybody gets bluelinked because the Church of Rome has officially recognized them as candidates for beatification.   He doesn't get a an automatic pass from his status as an unofficial candidate.  Notability therefore depends on meeting WP:GNG.  Here's a 2014 source calling him "Amador M. Tajanlangit" .  More sources under the honorific "Tay Amador" - which brings up a lot of false positives [ https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tay+Amador%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8], and a couple of news hits .  I also ran news archives searches on name and variants, and got zip - nothing at all - on proquest under any name I searched.  To me, it looks like a recent flurry of interest, not quite sufficient for an article.  Possibly WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete If he is actually granted sainthood by the Catholic Church then he will be notable, or if he moves onto the list connected with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints then he will probably be notable. However at present there is no evidence of having been noted significantly in reliable sources, so he is not yet notable. I know it seems a bit odd to argue someone who has been dead for 40 years is not yet clearly notable, but we have lots of articles on people who at the time they were alive would not have passed as notable. Notability is built on secondary source coverage, and some people only receive significant secondary source coverage long after their lifetime.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.