Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo E. Martinez


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Biblio  worm  17:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hugo E. Martinez

 * – ( 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  00:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Side-stepping the tired argument of whether Deseret News should be considered an LDS website, I think Martinez is notable for being the 1st LDS General Authority (analogous to Catholic Cardinal) from the Caribbean. I've found that many of the sources mention this fact. Also, I added some references to the article, including a couple of newspapers that I don't believe PBP can argue are beholden to the church. In general I find myself agreeing with the comment that User:Vojen made in the previous AfD for this article. (Scroll to the bottom, look for the long comment.) Some day I think it would be helpful to have some sort of RfC on the issue so that we can skip this process of the same old players making the same old arguments. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , feel free to start an RfC then. I believe one is not necessary at this time, and would oppose any proposal granting inherent notability to LDS General Authorities.  I also believe Vojen's argument to be a slap in the face to existing policy, and therefore heavily flawed and not really a good argument.  p  b  p  22:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Granted it doesn't conform to your interpretation of existing policy, but it makes several reasonable arguments based in policy, current practice, and common sense. Also, contradicting a policy doesn't automatically make an argument "heavily flawed" — if it did we'd never be able to make needed changes to existing policy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AfD is not the place to make changes to existing policy. If you believe policy should be changed to allow this, start the RfC Stokes has wanted for months.  Until policy is actually changed (which it shouldn't be and which I will heavily resist), his argument isn't grounded in policy, and, therefore, this article should be deleted.  I believe on the same page you're citing, I ask Vojen, "what about GNG", and he says he doesn't really care about GNG.  That's where my argument that his argument is heavily flawed.  p  b  p  14:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Vojen's excellent argument on previous articles. I have read all the relevant policies and am still of the belief that Vojen's argument is a sound one. I believe we make a mistake when articles are nominated for deletion without first making an attempt to resolve issues that exist in order to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. Additionally, as has been noted, Martinez is notable for being the first general authority from the Caribbean and from Puerto Rico. I have learned through sad experience that whatever I say, I will be ridiculed and bawled out for it. So I would merely say that I would like us to give this article a chance at life before we go nominating it for deletion. And that being said, I urge civility in our discussion. This will likely be my one and only comment on the issue. I will, however, be following this page to see what the outcome is. Whatever happens, I can be content that I have spoken out in defense of this article. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - on its own merits this article does not pass WP:NOTE, specifically WP:BIO. The coverage from the LDS website is too close to be considered independent. The coverage from heraldextra.com and from thespectrum.com is "trivial mentions" in wikipedia terms (that terminology sounds offensive but what I mean is that while it notes facts about Martinez the articles are not about him and his impact). That means only the Deseret news item might be close to good enough except that its owned by the Church itself and for me in this context that's all far too close to be independent. PbP is entirely correct there is no per se notability just for being a clergy man of the LDS, or for that matter any other religion, all such notability is based on them being covered significantly in independent third party reliable sources-- Cailil  talk 17:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (as with so many other AfDs that saw similar OTHERSTUFF/IAR-type keep arguments: Ochoa, Foster, Wilson, Alvarez, Hamilton...). Fails GNG/BIO. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:04, 27 November 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.