Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo E. Martinez (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I see four "keep" !votes from established users, and only the nominator arguing for deletion. Consensus is to keep. MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hugo E. Martinez
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A previous AfD in 2014 was closed as no consensus. Articles about LDS officials (just like articles about anything else) need independent sources to pass GNG. That means sources not connected with the LDS Church from where he draws his notability (Deseret News doesn't count; it's hand-and-glove with the LDS Church). Some may claim there's an exception that automatically grants notability to all high-ranking church officials. There is not. Similar officials with similarly-poor sourcing have been deleted. p b  p  16:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't buy this statement that a newspaper of the standard of the Deseret News should be discounted as an independent reliable source. There is no evidence that Hugo E. Martinez has any influence over the content of that publication. I'm a pretty militant atheist myself, but that doesn't mean that I think that people with different views shouldn't be covered by an encyclopedia, and very often, whether it's in religion, politics, sport, culture or any academic topic, it's only publications that specialise in a particular field that have coverage of a person. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Indeed, the argument about Deseret News's purported lack of independence was just argued and soundly rejected last month at Deletion_review/Log/2016 July 20. Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Soundly? The discussion was closed as no consensus, and the closing admin went rogue in his closure.  p  b  p  22:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment (I decline to vote on LDS matters). Internal publications of a church are likely to be reliable when reporting on matters such as appointment.  My impression is that he holds a senior position within LDS organisation, close to that of a bishop in other churches.  We have had discussions in the past on LDS officials.  It would be useful if WP could provide a definite answer as to how far down the LDS hierarchy people can be presumed to be notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note The template at the top missed the first deletion attempt, Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen (mass nomination), closed 15 July 2014 as no consensus without prejudice to individual renomination. ~Awilley (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Martinez as a General Authority is one of the top leaders of the LDS Church with international leadership standing. In some ways this puts him at a higher grade that a bishop in the Catholic Church, and in many ways closer to the international standing of a Cardinal. The nature of LDS General Conference means that sources such as the BYU Daily Universe not only took note of the fact he was the first to give a talk in this gathering in Spanish, but took note of the subject and message of his talk. This article absolutely should be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If being the first to talk to a gathering is so dang important, you should have no problem finding a source that isn't connected with the LDS Church to assert his notability. If he was as important as a Catholic cardinal (which he probably isn't; many Catholic cardinals preside over a number of believers as large as the entire Mormon church), then he'd receive as much non-LDS coverage as Catholic cardinals receive coverage in Catholic publications.  p  b  p  16:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with the previous comments that have been made. Martinez's position as a General Authority, especially in light of the fact that the Church no longer publicly differentiates between the members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy, establishes Martinez as a hierarchically important figure in the LDS Church. Besides, I was under the impression that the Deseret News had been determined to be a reliable source, and I am in the process of working to get all previously deleted articles about those formerly assigned to the Second Quorum of the Seventy restored on these same grounds. I believe that personal prejudice against the LDS Church is motivating these deletion nominations, and I challenge anyone to prove that this is not the case. This article should be kept particularly if this nomination is proven to be based on malicious vituperative dislike of Church topics. What's next? The deletion of all major articles about any LDS leader or topic? Not if you don't want an uprising. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There may or may not be prejudice at work here, but to demand that anyone "prove that this is not the case" is unreasonable. That is simply not susceptible to proof. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Jgstokes, it's on you to prove prejudice, not on me to prove lack thereof. There have been a number of discussions on WP:RS/N and related noticeboards as to the independence of Deseret News, and these indicate that a fairly substantial number of editors believe DN to not be independent of the LDS Church.  LDS leaders and topics MUST pass the notability standards we have on this page, and if they don't, they should be deleted.  This one doesn't.  If I find more that don't, I will either tag them with a refimprove tag or nominate them for deletion.  p  b  p  16:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please strike your accusations of bad faith. You are in violation of a core Wikipedia behavioral guideline and your accusations and threat of an "uprising" are more damaging to your own credibility than anything anyone else could say. ~Awilley (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – this seems a rerun of similar afds. Some editors believe that the Deseret News is a valid source (including me) and others (including pbp) that it isn't. Wasn't there a drv quite recently? How did that go again? (Oh yes: Octaviano Tenorio – "Endorse there is an overwhelming consensus to endorse the closure as proper" by the drv closer.) These afds seem to have become decidedly pointy. Oculi (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Lest we forget, the DRV endorsed the close of no consensus. It did not endorse keep.  It also is about one article; this is not that article.   It did not rewrite SNG or RS guidelines.  p  b  p  00:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think people should be restricted to say 3 contributions per discussion. All these LDS afd discussions are plastered with purple pbp marks, labouring the same point time after time after time. The drv endorsed 'no consensus to delete'. (Pbp makes 41 separate contributions to the afd on Octaviano Tenorio. This is obsessive.) Oculi (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * One of four people (two keepists and another person who voted delete) with 20 or more contributions to that AfD. And it's hard to keep your mouth shut when people are leveling personal attacks at you and constantly misconstruing everything you say.  You've made your point that you think I comment too much. I'm going to ignore it and keep commenting in discussions I want to comment in.  p  b  p  01:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But the DRV did endorse the closing statement that said that the Deseret News can be treated as an independent source for individual Mormons who have no control over its content. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, not really, at least not specifically. The closest it comes to doing so is saying, "Arguments provided suggested a lack of consensus."  Since Deseret News is not mentioned in the closing comments of the DRV, it would suggest there was a lack of consensus on that issue.  Besides, anything the DRV decides is applicable only to that one AfD.  p  b  p  19:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The DRV close had a consensus endorsing the no-consensus AFD close, which said, "the sources aren't directly connected to the article subject but to an organisation of which he's a part...". No evidence has been provided here that Hugo E. Martinez has any direct connection to the Deseret News, so that consensus applies here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying that because one article was closed a certain way means that another article was closed a certain way is an inherent WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Unless you can point me to a policy or guideline that says it's OK to source Mormon officials from a Mormon-controlled paper with an unabashed pro-Mormon church stance, the applicability of that close to this AfD is suspect.  There was recently a discussion about this at the reliable source noticeboard (not sure if that's the correct forum anyways, because independence, not reliability is the central issue), and it failed to produce a consensus that the Deseret News is independent of Mormon topics.  The fact that you and other people dismiss the bias of Deseret News (which, if you read previous AfDs and RSN discussions, is citeable from its own editorial policies) because it is only indirectly controlled by the Mormon church is also troubling.   p  b  p  20:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have already said twice, the issue is not that the newspaper is owned by the Mormons, but that Hugo E. Martinez has no influence over its content. Try reading what other editors actually say rather than respond to what you think they might have said. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In focusing only on whether Martinez himself controls the DN, you're missing the major problem with the DN in the first place. The problem is that DN is indirectly owned/controlled by the LDS church and that its mission is in part to promote the influence of Hugo Martinez and other people like him (I'd even argue perhaps exaggerate their influence).  You're kind of taking it backwards in that your assessment of DN starts with Martinez when it should start with DN.    p  b  p  22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In focusing only on whether Martinez himself controls the DN I'm following the close of the deletion discussion which was resoundingly endorsed by the deletion review linked above. You are entitled to hold a different point of view, but please don't pretend that it has had any consensus support. And it doesn't make any difference what order you take things in. Starting with Hugo. E. Martinez and seeing what he controls doesn't lead to the Deseret News, and starting from the Deseret News and seeing who controls it, and recursing, doesn't lead to Hugo. E. Martinez. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2016 (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.