Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James B. Martino


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

James B. Martino

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't have any sourcing that is independently notable of the topic. He's a Mormon leader who's only sourcing comes from the Mormon church. Some claim that any high-ranking church leader is automatically notable, but that is not supported by any policy or guideline. p b  p  17:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This is part of PBP's campaign against articles on Mormon General Authorities. He does not understand either their importance or their role. The importance and role were both convincingly explained in the deletion debate on Randy Funk. That debate closed as keep, and should have brought an end to these continued campaigns against such articles. This article has multiple sources from multiple times, that are in publications whose accuracy has not been questioned. The nomination reflects PBP's deep seated anti-Mormon bigotry. If he had engaged in attacking Jewish sources with the same sort of hateful vehemence that he has engaged in attacking Mormon sources he would have been blocked for it. His bigoted campaign should be stopped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoa, those are some strong allegations User:Johnpacklambert. I think it would be best to assume good faith here and retract some of what you have said. Just because a user nominates certain classes of articles for deletion does not mean they are bigoted against a class of people or beliefs. I haven't seen any "hateful vehemence" from the nominator on this or related matters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, just because you got lucky on Randy Funk doesn't mean that every General Authority article should be kept. Randy Funk was kept, but a dozen other LDS general authority articles were deleted.  The claim that I am a bigot is a ridiculous personal attack, and you should be blocked for saying something that ridiculous.  p  b  p  13:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: JPL's vote, IMO, should be disregarded as it doesn't really posit anything more than OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and a personal attack against me. No actual reasoning.  p  b  p  13:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tried to assume good faith. However PBP has consitently engaged in Attempts to mass exclude Mormon sources, has consistently chosen the most insulting language and descriptions he can find, and has consistently shown utter rudeness towards anyone who disagrees with him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone who has not seen hateful vehemence from PBP has not paid attention to his attempts to mass exclude Mormon sources, and his description of such as unreliable. He has also engaged in multiple attempts to ban other users for expressing opinions that he disagrees with. If someone had engaged in the same sort of attempts to exclude all aritcles on major Jewish leaders from Wikipedia they would have been called out multiple times for their bigotry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that PBP rushes to try to block people who engage with his attacks shows he is unfriendly to actual discourse and wants to force his views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that this nominator has gone after Steven E. Snow, who is among other things LDS Church historian, shows that he has no clear understanding of what is going on here, other than a desire to exclude all people important within Miormonism from having articles in Wikipedia. This will lead to policies that will make Wikipedia only reflective of the interests and desires of the cultural dominant groups, which is the antithesis of inclusiveness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. It sounds to me like you are over-personalizing things, User:Johnpacklambert. There's nothing that PBP has done in this nomination that would lead a reasonable editor to react as you have done. Obviously, this isn't the nominator's first nomination of an article about an LDS Church general authority. But I don't agree with your statement that "If someone had engaged in the same sort of attempts to exclude all articles on major Jewish leaders from Wikipedia they would have been called out multiple times for their bigotry." His rationale is not based on the religion or organization of the person; it is fairly soundly based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines on reliable sources. If those articles about major Jewish leaders were sourced solely with Jewish religious or quasi-religious sources, then proposing deletion could be entirely reasonable and not motivated by bigotry. Users can fairly disagree on how the policies and guidelines on reliable sources are applied in these cases, but I don't think there's any evidence of animus here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Could find no independent sources showing notability. John Pack Lambert, instead of constantly smearing PBP, why don't you find independent sources? --Neil N  talk to me 18:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your definition of non-indepdent sources has the tendency to remove a whole interrelated class of sources. These are consistently the best written sources on these individuals and because they are so well written they tend to be the only ones. This same issue exists with a large number of government officials. We have lots of members of state legislatures who are only sourced to sources created by the state legislature with these people having control over the source creation, while Martino had no direct role in creating the sources used on him here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You tried the same argument with Catholic bishops here and funnily enough, never took me up on my offer. Of course an organization is going to write reams and reams of stuff about people people high up in the organization. --Neil N  talk to me 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * JPL, I don't get where you think I want to remove sources entirely. I'm not saying don't use LDS sources for anything; I'm saying that can't be used to show notability for articles on LDS officials.  They can still be used in LDS articles to cite facts.  Also, the claim that only government websites have information on state legislators isn't entirely accurate.  Most state legislators receive coverage in local or regional newspapers.  Also, we've determined via community-wide consensus to adopt a guideline that all state legislators are considered to be notable.  We have not done that with LDS officials (and I would be opposed to doing that).  p  b  p
 * Delete. I've though a lot about this issue in light of past discussions and have carefully considered both sides. I think there are valid points to be made on either side. However, I have to agree that as far as notability is concerned—for LDS Church general authorities who do not hold life tenure, this can only be established by independent sources. If the Deseret News is as close as we can get to non–LDS Church independent sourcing (and I think it's in a category of quasi-independence from the LDS Church), then I'm afraid it is simply not enough. There has no be at least some coverage in a source that is completely independent from the LDS Church. I can't find any in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete These references are very close to the subject. Delibzr (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I find User:Vojen's comments on Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk persuasive. I would have thought that membership of the second quorum was comparable to receiving a "well-known and significant award or honor" and being a member of the legislature of a smaller sub-national body. If that fails, then merging these entries into an article, "members of the second quorum" is preferable to deleting them (cf. point 3, WP:POLOUTCOMES). Furius (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2015 (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.