Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jairo Mazzagardi


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Jairo Mazzagardi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources independent enough of the subject to establish notability. Similar LDS official articles have been deleted or redirected. p b  p  00:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose This is part of an attempt to evidently delete all articles on all members of the Second Quorum of the 70, an article at a time. If that is the goal, than all the articles should be considered at once, not an article at a time. Beyond this, the nominator's interpretation of independent tends to make too many things "controlled" by the subject. Mazzagardi does not control the Ensign or the Church News, he did not decided that he should be covered there, nor the form the articles on him there took. This type of interpretation of being controlled by the subject is not applied anywhere else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added an external link that is clearly 100% independent of the subject, even by the very broad interpretation of this term used by some editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ...It's a blogpost... JPL, the general consensus across all fields is if your notability stems from an association with organization X, ANY sources connected with organization X can't be used to establish notability.  As for the pace at which I nominate articles, it's perfectly acceptable.  An article that fails GNG and hasn't been previously AfD can be AfDed at ANY time, and it does not have to be bundled with other deletions.  p  b  p  00:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The guy is no doubt a wonderful fellow and a leader in his church, but he doesn't seem to have been noticed outside of it.Jacona (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent sources showing notability. -- Neil N  talk to me  02:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't understand why some articles about Second Quorum members have been nominated for deletion while others are left alone. To me, it's a matter of all or none. That is, either all Second Quorum members are relevant subjects for articles or none are. So which is it? I also find it interesting that only the articles I have written are being nominated for deletion. I feel like my work is being unfairly singled out, when there are other articles of the same situation (no sources outside of LDS-related ones) that are being left alone. I also feel like there is no argument I can make that would allow any or all such articles to be kept. This bothers me. LDS-related resources are just as reliable as non-LDS-related resources. They can be verified just as easily. So I don't see the problem in having articles just cite LDS-related resources. I fail to see how an article fails to reach GNG standards simply because the only resources available are LDS-related ones. Any light you can shed on these subjects would be appreciated. As with all previous discussions, this will likely be my only comment. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your premise is incorrect. It's like saying all university professors are notable or none are. No, we use WP:ACADEMIC to determine which are notable. As we don't have a similar guideline for religious figures, we fall back on WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage in independent sources. -- Neil N  talk to me  07:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "To me, it's a matter of all or none." That's not entirely true: some authorities may have reliable sources; the ones I nommed don't.  And you should be thankful I'm only nominating two or three of them a week, it gives you more time to look for sources.  p  b  p  00:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above (WP:BIO/WP:GNG). I posted some comments at Articles for deletion/Larry Y. Wilson that are too long to copy/paste, but which address some of the concerns raised. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:55, 10 June 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.