Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos H. Amado


 * 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   keep. The weight of consensus is clear, though the reasoning is thin. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Carlos H. Amado

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP with only references ripped from non-independent website. Similar general authorities to this have been deleted. GNG the primary relevant policy here, as there is no policy or guideline granting notability to LDS authorities p  b  p  03:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that members of the General Authority of the LDS (Mormon) church should be presumed notable. There are only 106 of them, they have ecclesiastical power, and I believe that they are comparable to bishops in other major Christian denominations. Personal disclosure - I am not a Mormon; I am a Jew. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to meet notability for his role in the LDS church, as suggested by Cullen328 above. I can't see how it would benefit Wikipedia to remove this, given that it is also clearly linked to a number of other similar subjects via the General Authority table at the bottom of the article and therefore provides background on key members of a notable religious denomination. No doubt references could be improved, but in this case it's not a reason to lose the article. Libby norman (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * and, notability isn't determined by holding a particular office, it's determined by the existence of reliable third-party sources. In most of the cases where we allow every article on a particular topic to be kept, it is because there are believed to be reliable sources in existence for each article in that topic.  For almost every general authority, this isn't the case: the only information on them comes from the LDS websites, and of course you'd need something more independent than that to pass GNG.  FWIW, the assertion that an article passes GNG simply because of holding a particular office is incorrect.  p  b  p  13:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a position on LDS/Mormonism other than Wikipedia needs information about it, in common with other organised religions. He appears to be notable to me in the sense that I would very possibly want to look him and other members of the General Authority up if I were researching the governance and authority of the church and that means I would hope to find a Wikipedia article. And where do you stop counting LDS influence in Utah – does it mean Brigham Young University and Deseret News (both of which mention him) have no value as sources? What about Ensign? As a comparison, if I were looking up a Catholic bishop I might find a source in The Catholic Herald – would I discount that as being biased...what about the reliability of The Jewish Chronicle as a source about a rabbi? I think you are opening up a can of worms here and it's certainly an interesting debate! However, sources I've found that don't appear to have a clear LDS connection are:  and  . Sources that do are multiple, but include  and  and . Libby norman (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep One cannot claim, as with members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, that Amado's notability is for a limited time only. Even as an emeritus general authority, he is still recognized as a general authority: he has just been released from active service but his tenure still remains, and he may still fill assignments, such as temple president, etc. All other nominations of previous emeritus GAs have failed, and this one will too. I applaud all those who have voted Keep who are not tied to the LDS faith. This shows that the Wikipedia community at large wants such articles to be kept. I admit that I cannot argue with the policies involved. This article may fail GNG. But surely not to the same extent that members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy do. This man is still serving, hence he is still notable. Again, I appreciate the other viewpoints that have been offered in support of keeping this article. This will likely be my only post on this issue. I leave it to those more familiar with the policies involved to object along those lines. Whatever your position may be, I urge civility and agreeableness as we strive to form a consensus opinion on this issue. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jgstokes, there are two things wrong with your comment:
 * "This article may fail GNG. But surely not to the same extent that members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy do." There's no "extent" involved in GNG.  It's black-and-white: you either pass it or fail it.  This article fails it.
 * "He may still fill assignments, such as temple president, etc." He doesn't gain notability until he actually get those assignments, AND getting those assignments gives him reliable third-party coverage.  The fact that he may or might is something called crystal balling, something that should be avoided in AfD discussions.  p  b  p  21:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I notice you failed to find fault with the argument that he is recognized as still serving and is thus still notable. Can't believe you let that one slide by you. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye." (Luke 6:41-42) --Jgstokes (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Spare me the biblical quotes,, I'm a good Methodist and don't need anyone to quote the Good Word to me. You want me to find fault with the still-serving argument?  Fine, I will: notability doesn't go away when you stop serving.  If sources exist for both a current official and a former official, both pass GNG equally.  As usual, you have yet to grasp how notability works.  I can't believe that I've explained notability to you at least five times, and some other people have as well, yet you fail to understand how it works.  p  b  p  22:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A Methodist, eh? That certainly explains your propensity for nominating LDS articles for deletion. Any good Methodist wouldn't do otherwise. If that's the case, one could surmise that you have an anti-LDS bias. Sure, as far as policy goes, it would seem to be on your side. But then, policy linked with prejudice often creates an impenetrable argument. You advised me to not employ the same argument I have used on previous deletion discussions until I understood the relevant policies. Very well. I won't do that. I will, however, point to possible bias on your part. If it was an LDS editor raising these issues, I'd be more inclined to believe their credibility. But where we have a clear possible bias, may I suggest that you, Purplebackpack89 not nominate or participate in deletion discussion of LDS-related articles unless and until it can be proven that you are truly unbiased in regards to the LDS faith. Throughout the ages, Methodists and LDS members have not always seen eye to eye. So unless you can prove your neutrality, your argument in favor of deletion doesn't hold water because you may be acting out of bias. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You want me to stop participating in these discussions, ? I will do nothing of the sort, and it is ridiculous that you ask me to do so.  You seem to be intimating that people who are avowed non-Mormons shouldn't participate in these discussions.  Neither being an avowed non-Mormon or disagreeing with Mormonism disqualifies you from editing Mormon articles, no more than being a Mormon disqualifies you from editing Mormon articles.  You can ask another editor to tell me to stop, or even complain about it on a community noticeboard, but I guarantee you it will go nowhere.  If you want to talk about this on a community noticeboard, instead of complaining about me and my approach, why not try and institute your line of thinking as policy? (obviously, I'd oppose this, but it looks like Cullen would support it).  p  b  p  00:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that he has an article in the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History a publication that although published by an LDS-Church owned press, was not in any way created under the control of the LDS Church, shows that he has received wider coverage than other people we have before discussed. The sources here expand beyond what we have seen in previous discussions. Not all those who had been general authorities were included in the Encyclopedia of LDS Church History, so Amado's inclusion indicates notability beyond merely being a general authority.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2014 (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.