Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcos A. Aidukaitis (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 redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). It would be easy to close this as delete, but the suggestion to redirect makes a lot of sense to me, per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Moreover, I suspect the only reason it didn't get more support is that it was made so late in the discussion. I'm guessing that had such an apropos redirect target been suggested earlier, it would have found support. If anybody feels the redirect is harmful, my feelings won't be hurt if you take it to WP:RfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Marcos A. Aidukaitis
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to short passing mentions, directory listings, short quotations from the subject and name checks. Not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The primary sources in the article and found in searches do not serve to establish notability. See also: WP:SPIP: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." – North America1000 20:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The arguments presented in the last deletion discussion on this subject remain valid. It remains clear that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not automatically notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article based upon the concept of presumed notability, because no guideline or policy exists to qualify this sort of automatic notability. As such, multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability. North America1000 03:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Furthermore, a previous discussion on the Notability (people) talk page in 2016, located here, regarding the notion of LDS church and other religious organization leaders being granted presumed notability on Wikipedia was widely opposed, with a consensus to not add a stipulation regarding said presumption of notability to the guideline page. Sorry, but the !vote above is rooted entirely in personal opinion, not Wikipedia guidelines or policies. North America1000 05:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: North America, that is precisely the problem. In Wikipedia's notability standards, there is no established exception for LDS general authority seventies. That is not for lack of trying. In prior deletion discussions, the issue of establishing such subjects as notable was discussed extensively, but almost every time, people participating in the discussion of that subject in the section(s) to which I was referred by those participating in such discussions indicated that those sections were not the correct place to raise this issue. I have therefore been given the run-around. This creates an enormous paradox: the subjects of these articles are notable precisely because of the service they render to the Church and its' worldwide membership, and if they were not in the positions through which such service were rendered, they would be no more notable to the Church or anywhere else than someone like me is. If there is a proper place for the notability question to be deliberated, I'd appreciate being directed to it without further run-arounds or misdirects. That said, I have edited Wikipedia for over a decade now, and although I understand the notability policies, it is curious that these deletion nominations have only become a real thing here on Wikipedia within the last 2-3 years. The notability guidelines now are the same as they were when I first joined Wikipedia as an editor in 2007, and if articles about such subjects were not a problem at that time, I fail to see why that is suddenly the case now. That said, I understand the policies involved, and if the consensus determines that General Authority Seventy articles need to be deleted for failing to meet the notability guidelines, I will accept that decision. But I am in the process of trying to establish an exception that would categorically establish notability for General Authority Seventies, so I would also be appreciative if this discussion and a decision on it could be placed on hold while I work on that issue. If that's not possible, it's not a problem, but I thought I'd ask.--Jgstokes (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – I don't view the present status quo regarding notability guidelines as a problem at all. The guidelines were created based upon consensus regarding what is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also, I don't view Wikipedia as a repository for every person in the world that has received significant coverage only in primary sources. There are other websites and resources available for those that do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Also, I do not want to place this discussion on hold at all. North America1000 05:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I recognize and support the evolution of policy over the years. But most of the policies under which articles such as this were originally created have not fundamentally changed within the last decade, so if an article was not a problem then, I don't see why that should be the case now. I also did not in any way intend to imply that every person in the world who is given significant coverage only in primary sources should have an article here on Wikipedia, and apologize if anything I have said has been interpreted as such. That said, for a religious denomination that has 16+ million members worldwide, and is recognized as the fourth (or even third)-largest religious denomination in the world, there should be a similar (but certainly not identical) policies establishing notability for full-time leaders of this Church. And again, through no fault of my own, my efforts to try and establish such an exception have me running around in circles. It is certainly up to you whether or not to halt the discussion on this nomination. Either way, I will continue to do what I can to find the right place to have the discussion that many editors have agreed needs to take place to establish notability standards. And again, if the consensus opts for deletion, I will accept that decision (whether or not I personally agree with it). But it seems to me that continuing the deletion discussion for such articles may be somewhat disingenuous if earnest efforts are being made by myself and others to resolve the concerns that led to the deletion nominations to begin with. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * LDS is smaller than Seventh-day Adventist Church and Evangelical Church in Germany, similar in size to Apostolic Church (denomination) and Southern Baptist Convention, and nowhere near the larger Catholic and Orthodox denominations, not to mention religious groups from traditions other than Christianity. Bakazaka (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment For reference, here are some previous discussions of LDS leaders in Notability talk archives: 2014, 2016, and 2017. Bakazaka (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm skeptical about adding particular offices to inherent notability, but the venue for that is Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). The issue of independent sources for leaders of denominations with tight hierarchies and official publications is difficult, and is worthy of more careful attention. However, in this particular case, the lack of even incidental independent coverage makes this article clear to me. Daask (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Subject does not meet WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and for failing WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). This may be a popular search term as there are millions of Mormons worldwide and the only thing he is recognized for is being the FQotS. Just merge there that the current one is this guy. Redditaddict69 16:12, 2 September 2018 (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.