Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John U. Teh


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Go   Phightins  !  22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael John U. Teh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only sources are LDS-related, and since he is an official of that church, they can't be classified as reliable, independent sources; sorry p  b  p  17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a member of the 1st-Quorum of the 70 and president of the Philippines Area of the Church. In the later position he presides over 600,000 Church members, in over 1000 congregations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What's that got to do with the price of eggs? Around here, articles are kept because they have notable, reliable sources. If he is as important as you make him out to be, you shouldn't have any trouble find sources (WP:BURDEN)  p  b  p  17:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think this is a stretch of the "independence" criterion. If a high-level member of a church of over 14 million people can be sourced by official church sources, that should be more that enough. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a stretch, sorry. Please read WP:V and WP:RELIABLESOURCE.  It's no different than having the notability of a company's executive staked on info from that company's website.  The size of the LDS church has no bearing on the independence  p  b  p  01:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that point is debatable, but in any case I've found an independent source that confirms the information from LDS sources - though not necessarily satisfying notability requirements: this article from Inquirer.net. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - the person is clearly notable and the nom's insistence on non-LDS sources is bizarre. These LDS-related noms seem inspired by personal animus rather than logic. Oculi (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. הסרפד  (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nom has made the same argument in several places and it never quite seems to stick. I just read WP:RS and WP:V (as the nom suggested) and they don't say anything to the effect that major newspapers or news outlents should be ignored as sources if they are somehow affiliated with the subject of the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the appropriate subsection is WP:SELFSOURCE. – H T  D  05:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there are no sources outside of the LDS church. If he is truly notable, he'd have some coverage in the Philippines, notwithstanding the trivial coverage in the link presented above. Finding contemporary sources in the Philippines is not hard, it just gets hard if the subject is borderline notable, and all of the links had died. – H  T  D  05:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: To those who insist on non-LDS sources, here is an article from the Manila Bulletin which implies Teh's prominence. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The Manila Bulletin article is probably just barely enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno if half an article satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. – H T  D  07:59, 16 December 2012 (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.