Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octaviano Tenorio


 * 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   No consensus; there is no point keeping this open any longer, since it's well past the "more heat than light" stage. I do have a degree of sympathy with the delete arguments, but I consider the primary argument around the definition of "independent source" to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what we mean by "independent of the article subject". The sources aren't directly connected to the article subject but to an organisation of which he's a part, and that degree of connection isn't sufficient to discount the sources, any more than we would discount the Journal of the American Statistical Association or The Spectator as sources for biographies because most of the people mentioned will be connected to the ASA or the Conservative Party. On discounting those delete arguments made on this basis, it's clear that there's no consensus for deletion here. Also, Wikipedia's practice has always been that regardless of the neutrality of sources, if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability (most articles on Christian saints are sourced entirely to Christian sources; good luck getting Saint Mirin and the like deleted). Thus, while the numbers may tilt towards deletion, in terms of (definitely) Wikipedia custom and practice and (arguably) Wikipedia policy, those supporting keep have the stronger arguments, and the only reasonable closures for this are either "keep" or "no consensus"; I'm going with the latter as although the result is the same, it probably more accurately reflects the balance of the discussion. I'd also add that the conduct of some parties in this discussion, particularly the nominator, has been absolutely atrocious, and when this goes to the almost inevitable DRV I strongly recommend the semicoherent ranting and superfluous bolding be toned down considerably. &#8209; Iridescent 10:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (adding) I do have some sympathy with User:Herostratus's request for a relist, but the best way to do this is via either DRV or a fresh AFD listing. This AFD debate is a toxic brew of people on both sides shouting at each other, and keeping it open is serving no useful purpose. &#8209; Iridescent 10:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Octaviano Tenorio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent sources. All "sources" of this article are either passive mentions (the Salt Lake Tribune article has a mention of Tenorio that is only one sentence long) or are connected with the LDS church, from which he draws his notability. p b  p  16:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep To being with there is an attempt to cast drawing notability too widely. The LDS sources are indepth coverage because he is a major person to a religion with over 15 million members. Yet we have a source from the Salt Lake Tribune, which is absolutely not an LDS source. So why is it not accepted, because it is supposedly a "passive mention". However it is a mention that inherently shows that Tenorio is a widely respected and known person, it inherently shows that Tenorio is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you even read that article, ? It's a passing mention about Octaviano in an article about [redacted].  There is one sentence about him in the article.  Please familiarize yourself with notability guidelines before continuing to create articles or vote in AfDs.  Also, there is no policy that states that high-ranking LDS officials are inherently notable.  The size of the LDS church has no bearing on this discussion.  If you believe that high-ranking LDS officials are inherently notable, create a discussion at one of the policy-changing forums on the topic.  Until then, GNG reigns supreme, and this article fails GNG.  p  b  p  17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the one who does not even try to understand the nature and meaning of the reference. Size of religious organizations does have a bearing on the importance and notability of their leadership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's one sentence! ONE SENTENCE.  That's the only independent reference in the article!  Also, please provide me with the policy or guideline that being a mid-level official of a religion of a certain size means automatically notable.  Oh, right, there is one.  p  b  p  17:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenorio is not a "mid-level" official. He is one of the top international leaders of the Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It doesn't matter if he is the biggest chief of all time.  What matters is whether he passes WP:GNG.  Please, JPL go read and study GNG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. The article's creator Johnpacklambert (JPL) confuses the concept of notability with the concept of importance. The policy at GNG is that there should multiple independent and reliable references to sustain an article about this individual. In this case there is only:
 * A mention in a book published by Brigham Young University, which the head article notes in its lede "is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Regardless of the size of the coverage there, it fails the independence part of the GNG requirement for  significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * A passing mention in an article about his brother. That fails the "significant" part of the GNG test.
 * So there is precisely nothing to count towards WP:GNG. The article's creator, JPL, seems to be aware of this, because he has just proposed amending the notability guidelines to create an exception for "Leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious organizations", specifically to rescue this article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Notice. I removed a sentence from the article and redacted part of two sentences from this discussion. Please read WP:BLP. I would strongly recommended not discussing that topic any further. Herostratus (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Article doesn't have this. --Neil N  talk to me 21:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Squeaks in under WP:GNG, arguably. I added two refs to the Deseret News, which the Deseret News is owned by a church, but so is the Christian Science Monitor and they are both reliable and notable sources of general news -- although granted the Deseret News does also include Mormon church news (but then, that's important to life in Salt Lake City no matter what your persuasion). One of the sources has a couple sentences about him, but also quotes him, and the entire article is, while not about him, about the Missionary Training Center of which he is the head. The other source is a full mini-biography talking about his posts and his familiy and what have you.


 * So there's your multiple (two) coverages which are (arguably) "significant coverage" in a major general-audience newspaper.


 * In addition to that there're full bios of him elsewhere. Sure they're internal church organs, but it's a big and important church and people read this stuff. Liahona is notable enough to have an article here; it's not nothing. It counts some.


 * In addition, for your tie-breakers, he's A Grand Poobah or whatever of pretty big church, and there are only 100 Grand Poobahs, and that matters, and he's head of the church's second biggest Missionary Training Center, and Training Missionaries is central to this church's whole shebang. So he's an important guy.


 * And there's probably more stuff out there. I found those two sources in two minutes of looking. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think your keep vote is particularly rooted in policy. For one, I don't consider Deseret News to be an independent source.  You mention the Christian Science Monitor: I can understand using the CSM to cite a random bio, but I would give pause at using it as the primary means of determining notability for a poobah in the Christian Science Church.  The same logic applies to the Deseret News: acceptable for ascertaining notability of a non-Mormon, not as much for a Mormon (Note that that doesn't mean it can never be used as a source.  It just means that Mormon officials need to have citations from other works in addition to it to pass the reliable, independent sources threshold).  Also, the poobah argument has been discounted above as not being rooted in policy.  p  b  p  21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which source is intellectually independent and has significant coverage of the subject? --Neil N  talk to me 21:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My vote is rooted in policy, specifically WP:GNG and I explained why and how. My take on the Deseret News is that it's not a religious paper but rather a large, long-established, distinguished, notable, neutral, professionally written and edited and fact-checked general-audience general-news entity with a large circulation.


 * And as I explained, in addition to maybe passing WP:GNG (depending on how you cock your head), what's the hurry to get rid of this article? There's plenty of church sources for info on the person. And it appears the guy is a major behind-the-scenes player in the world. Presidency of the Mexico City Missionary Training Center alone makes him a (minor) player on the world stage, notwithstanding that this is behind the scenes and less likely to garner press attention than if he played shortstop for the Dodgers. How does it help the project to say to readers "Well, you came here looking for info on this important person, but guess what? You're on your own". We're not rule-bound here, we're here to serve the reader. Herostratus (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The same can be said for every YouTube "personality". Just wait and sources will turn up somewhere... some time... --Neil N  talk to me 23:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The distinction behind important behind-the-scenes figures and important on-stage figures does matter, because our rules say that there must be reliable, independent sources. If you don't like it, change them...but they are there for reasons.  p  b  p  00:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are sufficent refs in the Deseret News to support a stub article, IMO. It's MO and you don't have to agree. It's borderline and there's no way to be certain who is "right". I think I am but who knows?


 * The other refs are not good for establishing whether the article should exist, but if it is allowed to (by the Deseret News refs), they are considered reliable and useable to fill the article out to its present useful size and make it be another ornament to the project. Herostratus (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying remove those sources if the article is kept. What I'm saying is for the article to be kept, there needs to be sources from somewhere else in addition to them.  p  b  p  15:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This isn't really that hard.  Is he generally notable?  If so, he will have significant press coverage in neutral sources.  Nothing significant in neutral sources?  Conversation can end.  If he is generally notable, and he becomes so widely known that a significant number of people will come to wikipedia looking for information on him, then significant press coverage from neutral sources will happen.  The NYT, WSJ, and WashPo aren't ignoring him despite his importance because of his religious affiliation; if they're ignoring him, it's because he's not newsworthy.  He's still an important human being; people can still love him, respect him, and admire him -- he just doesn't meet a notability standard on a website he doubtlessly isn't losing any sleep over.  Deltopia (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per BHG and others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: The officials of the LDS Church are not apt to get a lot of widespread coverage outside of publications interested in the denomination, but looks like there are about 100 people holding this particular office.  That is, given the total membership of the church, significant.  His minority status is also rather unique -- the LDS church has had (at least in the past) something of a reputation for being a white male bastion, so this individual holding a position of responsibility is also significant.  As for sourcing, a Google search brought up some possible Spanish-language sources on him, and there may be more third-party sources there --JPL, you may want to check on that. As for the Deseret News, it may be a "Mormon paper," but it has significant circulation. While it has a slant, it's not a tabloid and it would be a RS for what it contains. (and IMHO, the CSM has a reputation for journalistic integrity and I'd be OK if they covered one of their own too.) In other denominations, we would cover, for example, a Catholic Archbishop and certainly a Cardinal.  I also am concerned that there is a bit of systemic bias against Mormonism here, which we need to be very careful to avoid.   Montanabw (talk)  07:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "The officials of the LDS Church are not apt to get a lot of widespread coverage outside of publications interested in the denomination." Lemme stop you right there.  That's essentially an admission that this and similar articles are unlikely to pass GNG.  As for systemic bias, I'd say it's in the other direction at present: any mid- or high-level Mormon official who could possibly have an article (even an article that doesn't really pass GNG) has one.  I'm not sure if this is analogous to an Archbishop either, maybe Bishop.  p  b  p  14:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Policy is very clear that articles must be based on reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subjects. If those sources do not exist, then we do not have the basis for an article which complies with our fundamental criteria for content. A lack of independent sources may even be due to crimes of the most heinous wickedness, but again Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. No matter how it came to be that there are insufficient reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subjects, the policy is the same: without them, we should not have an article. As to the independence of Deseret News, you are trying to wriggle off that hook by creating a straw man. The policy is not that "the source must not be controlled by the subject"; it is the broader test that the source must be "independent of the subject". Desert News is owned by the organisation in which Tenorio is an officer; they are both part of the Mormon Church (Tenorio by office, the paper by ownership), and as NeilN notes above, the church control over the paper extends even to declining advertising revenue which conflicts with the church. A paper which restricts its most important source of income by deferring to the values of the church which owns it is not independent of that church. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Large swathes of that article are unsourced, and the crucial section §Common elements is wholly unsourced, and does not support your assertion. I suggest instead that you provide evidence (from the assessment of uninvolved experts) of your apparent belief in the "independence" of a newspaper wholly-owned by the Mormon Church and which does not itself claim any independence from its owners. In fact, the paper's own statement on its Editorial voice is explicitly biased towards religion. It proclaims a "focus on faith and family oriented audiences" and that "Active faith cultivates the habits of self-governance required for a successful democracy". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Despite your series of smokescreens, this is all fairly simple. The test in WP:GNG is whether the source is independent of the subject. You offer no evidence for your bizarre claim that Deseret News is independent of the Mormon Church which owns it, and whose values it explicitly upholds in its own editorial guidelines. If you want to advance the fanciful claim that the journalists working in those conditions are "independent", go find the evidence for that claim. There is now a whole series of posts by you in which you try to create straw men. In this case, you are trying to evade the fairly simple test of of independence, by asking for evidence of actual misconduct. In your first reply to me you asserted that the Deseret News may be owned by the Mormon church, but it isn't a tabloid that makes up stories about who assorted church officials are without fact-checking. Stop and unpick that, because it's a textbook exercise in smokescreening. In the first 9 words you concede the crucial point about lack of independence ... but you promptly try to draw attention away from that by asserting that it isn't a tabloid that makes up stories. That second part is a straw man, because nobody except you has in any way suggested that it makes up stories. You have persistently tried to divert this discussion into testing the reliability of the sources, but none of the !votes of delete are based on the reliability (or unreliability) of the sources. In every case, the !votes to delete are based on the lack of independence: it has been repeatedly demonstrated that a) every source currently used in the article is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mormon Church in which Tenorio is a reportedly senior office-holder, and b) those sources have active policies of support for the values of their owners. In simple terms, nobody except his own team writes about him ... and regardless of how accurately they write about him, he fails notability because nobody except his own team writes about him. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is disappointing to see some editors (e.g. Montanabw and Herostratus) confusing the policy's inclusion criterion of notability with the separate concept of importance. Arguments at AFD are supposed to be based on policy, and the policy is clearly based on the extent of coverage in independent reliable sources, rather than on editors' subjective judgements either way about "importance". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I respectfully disagree with your analysis. Here notability dovetails with importance within the field of governance of the LDS church. There exists a LOT of prejudice against Mormons in the United States, and there is seldom any coverage by the mainstream press of anything happening in that church unless it is a scandal of some sort. So here, if the sources are reliable for what they are reporting, and independent of the subject of the article, we are good to go. Do not confuse notability with notoriety!   He is notable (arguably there are unimportant people who are notable in a tabloid-y way, such as, any of the Kardashians) and WP:N is straightforward: "...reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article."  Sources such as the Deseret News are independent of the subject, which is Tenorio -- he does not own these papers, nor does he "own" the Mormon church.  He was selected for a high position within the church organization, and this was reported in the press.  WP:N goes on to discuss reliability, "...sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline."  Again, the sources here have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability.  Sure, the Deseret News may be owned by the Mormon church, but it isn't a tabloid that makes up stories about who assorted church officials are without fact-checking!!!  (No claims of this guy performing miracles, no woo-woo conspiracy theories, it's a simple newspaper that has no more or less bias than any publication owned by News Corporation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
 * I don't think "it's a media conspiracy!" is going to work here. We don't get to decide he's notable because he's "worthy" of being notable. And Deseret News is in no way a regular newspaper. Prime example: "The newspaper does not accept advertising that violates church standards." Say what you will about News Corporation. I don't think they'll be refusing money from liberal causes if they want to run ads on its networks. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And I don't care if there is a media conspiracy or not. If there aren't independent secondary sources, it fails GNG regardless of the reasons why there aren't independent sources.  Conversely, notorious people still pass GNG (though they sometimes fail other guidelines like 1EVENT).  p  b  p  00:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply I don't know anything about whether there is media bias against mormons. It's not one of my areas of interest, nor is likely to become one.  However, for the purpose of this discussion let's assume that you are justified in asserting such a media bias, and that it is demonstrably severe, long-standing and persistent. Even if that it is the case, it is still irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs.
 * Independence is part of Journalism ethics and standards. Did you have any sourced evidence for your extraordinary claim that Deseret News does not practice standard journalism ethics?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Deseret News is owned by the church, and anything it publishes relating to the church cannot be considered independent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * before you link to a Wikipedia article in support of your assertion, it would be wise a) note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source; b) to check that the article you cite is properly-sourced and cited; c) to check that it says what you would like it to say. You fail on all 3 points.
 * If you have sources, why have you responded with a fake guideline, an appeal to your omniscience, an inappropriate link to WP:RS, a misdirection based on the word "unsourced", and an attempt to shift the burden of evidence? No professional reporter is "independent" of a paycheck and living on the planet Earth.  Do you have any evidence that the journalism ethics standards of Deseret News are substandard?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are really scraping the barrel here, Unscintillating. You cite an unsourced en.wp article which doesn't support your claim, and now you try to accuse me of shifting the burden of proof? Boggle.


 * Delete per nom. Independent sources are a must to confer notability. If the subject were notable I'd have no problem retaining the LDS media sources as citations but they can't pass GNG. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See above Chris, for my response to your comments and those of BHG.  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  23:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did. Independent sources are needed establish notability; reliability isn't the issue. That he's a Mexican in a mostly Caucasian church doesn't make him notable, either. As I've said at WT:N, efforts like yours to address "systemic bias against Mormonism" are arguments against consensus and policy. We don't make carve-outs for minorities of any kind because subjects fall short of notability and verifiability. I don't understand why an editor of your experience would push these arguments. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You've cited WP:42, but WP:42 is a essay that is for beginners. Notability is not conferred.  Verifiability is a core content policy, and no one has suggested that anyone is carving out exceptions to WP:V, in fact there is wide agreement here that reliable sources exist that satisfy WP:V.  The nature of your argument also agrees that reliable sources exist suitable for a merge target.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Satisfying WP:V doesn't mean it satisfies WP:N (and BTW, the nutshell part of WP:N is essentially the same as WP:42). p  b  p  03:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've participated in the writing of each, and I know that WP:42 is currently controlled by GNG-centrists, which is not a policy-based position. It is easy to falsify your claim, so it puzzles me why you would make it.


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Comparison of assertion that nutshell part of WP:N is essentially the same as WP:42
 * Articles generally require 
 * Articles generally require 
 * Articles generally require 
 * Articles generally require 

in 

that are  of the topic.
 * }
 * Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you're not seeing what I'm seeing. Compare the sentence "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." with "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic"  p  b  p  13:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The nutshell is talking about evidence; while WP:GNG talks about significant coverage, which generally means prose. Evidence includes more than prose  significant coverage .  Unscintillating (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed you were commenting at me until now, so here's my late response. Arguing that WP:42 is just an essay and not one you agree with is fine. I would avoid saying that the essay is "is for beginners" as if there's one rule for n00bz and another for you or I. You haven't "falsif[ied] [my] claim" but your rank desperation is getting me excited. My argument is that the publications of an organization don't confer general notability on one of their own. As Cullen328 points out, we couldn't use L'Osservatore Romano and the National Catholic Reporter to confer general notability on a Catholic official. Catholics have an SNG to qualify. Mormons do not. I don't accept outlets like Deseret News as independent because they're not. Do I think they're lying about Elder Tenorio? No. They might have a good editorial board, too. Regardless they're an organ of their church and as such don't confer notability. Every argument counter to that argues for an exception to that rule. Those carve-outs don't exist and those editors who disagree need to to get WP:N changed before they visit WP:REFUND. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. After reviewing the sources, this doesn't pass GNG or any other notability criteria. WP:ITSIMPORTANT is an argument to avoid unless you can relate why it's useful to relevant policies and guidelines. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If we are going to go ALLCAPS about guidelines, then let's look at WP:IGNORINGATD, then. It states, in short: "The fact that a topic is not notable is not, alone and in of itself, a valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its page history. It is at most an argument for merger and/or redirection. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds... Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult."  Perhaps  could start a List of people with this status, spinning out the better-known ones into separate articles.  That said, given that we keep articles on every contestant in Miss Universe, seems to me we have some screamingly inconsistent standards here. Also note WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  07:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Where do I sign up for reviewing AfDs on Miss Universe contestants? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, offline sources can be evaluated if and when they are found. But until then, we have none, and should bear in mind the warning by the pro-keep User:Montanabw that The officials of the LDS Church are not apt to get a lot of widespread coverage outside of publications interested in the denomination. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC) The state of Massachusetts appoints the trustees of UMass, but the state of Massachusetts does not have a consistent or singular belief system. The political and other views of the state's rulers change periodically at elections. That is a severe contrast to BYU, which has always been owned by one body with a stable belief system, and where we actually have an article on the controversies around the university's restrictions on academic freedom: Academic freedom at Brigham Young University. Note that the American Association of University Professors has placed BYU on its censure list since 1998, having concluded that "that infringements on academic freedom [at BYU] are distressingly common and that the climate for academic freedom is distressingly poor". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * they do show up at WikiProject Women/Article alerts (along with scientists and CEOs, but most of the porn star articles wind up kept. Sigh...)   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  07:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're quoting an essay, not a guideline. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As was I, to be fair. I have no quarrel against a merge or redirect if someone proposes one. None have been proposed and I can't think of a valid target. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're again delving into the realm of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You think that because WP has articles on cheesy celebrities like the Kardashians or Miss Universe contestants, we must have an article about each Mormon authority.  You're continually missing the point: this article can't be sourced from non-Mormon sources, and policy says it needs to be.  p  b  p  13:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep barely passes WP:GNG--TM 13:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * why do you say it passes GNG, even barely? There is not a single independent source. The article is sourced entirely to emanations of the Mormon Church: its private university, its newspaper, and its in-house magazines. - Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the combination of his position within the church and coverage in the BYU studies book is just barely enough to keep. I also suspect that, given his position there are offline sources that give more coverage that we do not yet have access to.--TM 13:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As noted elsewhere, the book is not independent. It was published a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mormon church and as pbp notes below, it was "co-authored by a former assistant historian of the Church of Latter Day Saints. The project was started by the Mormons as a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Malachi that the hearts of the children would be turned to the fathers and the prophet Elijah would return".
 * Would books about Massachusetts government not be considered independent if published by the University of Massachusetts Press? Afterall, that's a state-sponsored print house. I think what you're implicating is in fact heavily tinted by anti-Mormon bias. I am not ready to say that sources published by a certain press are automatically biased towards a certain subject.--TM 17:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, the old unevidenced bias allegation, a regular personal attack tactic of those without a viable substantive argument.
 * I quite agree. I'm skeptical of BYU's research and that of places like Bob Jones University more than I am of research out of other institutions.  p  b  p  20:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment To call "Hearts Turned to the Fathers: A History of the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1894-1994" a "Publication of the LDS' Church's private university" is just plain misrepresentative of it. It was published by BYU Studies Press, which is more or less a mid-history ancestor/descendant of BYU Press. This is run as an academic press, adhering to established standards of academic presses. The ownership issues should not be allowed to obscure these facts. The mention of Tenorio is significant enough to be included in the index, and shows that Tenorio in addition to later being a General Authority (one of the top leaders of the Church worldwide, who give talks to the Church worldwide, listened to worldwide and seen as normative to doctrine), was also the initial pioneer in the international expansion of some key components of LDS family history work and local control of such components, so much so that he is deemed worthy of mentioning in such a role. The people who wrote this book, James B. Allen, Jessie L. Embry and Kahlile B. Mehr are well recognized scholars, and to ignore their work as a reliable source just because of who published it is to unfairly block off many sources on Latter-day Saints because of the nature of publications on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't find the actual reference to Tenorio online (except that he's indexed for only a single page, which does question the depth of his coverage in the book), but let me read you the epigraph: "co-authored by a former assistant historian of the Church of Latter Day Saints. The project was started by the Mormons as a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Malachi that the hearts of the children would be turned to the fathers and the prophet Elijah would return". The epigraph screams, "connected with the LDS Church"; I don't really know how it could scream it any louder.  If Tenorio was as dang significant as you seem to make him out to be,, why can't you find anything about him that isn't connected to the LDS Church in some way?  p  b  p  22:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been, in anclear roundabout way, told I should have made my role in the creation of this article more clear. I created this article, and am probably responsible for close to 75% of the article text, the history of editing is hard to assess, but much of what I didn't do was adding categories and info boxes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The applicability of WP:N is simple:  either there is enough third-party coverage or there is not. Here we have no "self-published" sources, so that's a plus, the sources we have are not paid-PR sources either, so that's a plus. He didn't pay someone to write the article as a puff piece, so that's a plus. The sources are independent of the subject and reliable.  Just because they are affiliated with his faith does not mean they fail WP:N -- there are Catholic publications about notable Catholics, Jewish publications about notable Jews, and so on.  This has nothing to do with the tenets of the Mormon church and nothing to do with whether we agree with these tenets or not (and, FWIW, I don't. I'm not LDS, nor am I a conservative fundamentalist sort.  I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm a not-very-active Methodist with fairly liberal theological beliefs, ).  The question is if a leader within the Mormon church, at this level is either a) inherently notable because he holds an inherently notable position, or b) the position might not be inherently notable, but this guy is more notable than most of the other folks who are similarly-situated.  The fact that he is primarily covered in the "specialty press" does not defeat notability, otherwise we couldn't have an article on Bodacious (bull) because the primary coverage he got was in the rodeo press.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  20:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's quite a large gap between specialty press and a publication owned by the subject's employer. If the bull's owner also owned a newspaper and that newspaper published an article on Bodacious, I would similarly advocate deletion in the absence of better sources. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting that distinction. For whatever reason,  has engaged in a lot of attempted obfuscation in the course of this discussion. The latest round is this attempt to blur the focus by:
 * cheering the fact that "the sources we have are not paid-PR sources". Yet another straw man, 'cos nobody else raised any suggestion that they are paid-PR.
 * labelling these sources as "speciality press", whereas Montanabw knows perfectly well that the objection is to the fact that this is the wholly-owned press, which explicitly pledges its allegiance to Mormon values.
 * Mbw also asks if Tenorio is a) inherently notable because he holds an inherently notable position, or b) the position might not be inherently notable, but this guy is more notable than most of the other folks who are similarly-situated, but neither question has any basis in policy. WP:N does not label any position as "inherently notable". and it does not apply some sort of comparative test.  It's a huge timewaster to have a discussion such as this bombarded by an editor who has either not read the policy, or is just making stuff up.
 * This smokescreening by straw man and red herring is very mischievous, and surprisingly persistent. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh. JPL please please please please please desist from cluttering up this discussion with more comments until you have read WP:GNG. The issue here is not whether these are reliable sources. The question is whether these sources are independent of the subject ... and the evidence is that they are not.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * JPL, any editor is quite entitled to offer a reasoned critique of the independence of a source without being subject to an unfounded accusation of religious bigotry. Please withdraw that allegation, promptly. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * JPL, any editor is entitled to query any source, and query the independence of any institution, without facing an unevidenced allegation of bigotry. If you checked your facts, you would see that I did not mention that other university.  This is my last request. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have spelled that out in simple, direct terms to, and  so many times that it should be very clear by now. The point is simply that notability requires independent sources. It is not enough for the sources to be reliable; that too is a requirement for notability, but for notability to be established it is q requirement that the topic gets substantial coverage in a reliable source which is not part of their own team. The writing concerned may be honest and truthful, but the GNG test of notability is not met if it is not independent. What part of that is hard for, and  to understand? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A much fairer comparison would by of BYU to the Catholic University of America. I doubt that comparison will change anyone's mind about the BYU Studies published source, but it might.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have attempted to engage BHG in a discussion of independence in journalism ethics and been unable to do so.  The last reply to me was a 2500 character response with words such as "bizarre".  The response also contained a lengthy analysis of words attributed to me that I never said (search for "tabloid").  The bottom line is that there is no evidence that Deseret News and LDS Church News practice substandard journalism ethics.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (and and ): Being independent and being ethical are two different things.  I think that was the whole point of BHG's comments above.  Also, in one of his (now-removed) comments, JPL claimed that BHG and I were calling for removal of all Mormon sources.  What we are calling for is for articles on Mormon topics to contain both Mormon and non-Mormon sources.  p  b  p  05:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, pbp. You are of course correct that the whole point of my comments above was that these wholly-owned subsiduaries of the Mormon Church are not independent of a senior officer of that church.
 * In reply to my comment, two editors with a combined edit count of 37 on this one page have added 1,897 characters; but I don't yet see a discussion about independence in journalism ethics. Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You must've missed what I've said above at least once: independence and ethics are two different things. Nobody here's saying that Deseret News is unethical.  All we're saying is that it's not independent.  And BHG has provided ample evidence of why Deseret News isn't independent.  p  b  p  00:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So if they are not unethical, then they practice independence in their journalism ethics. Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about notability, which in this case hinges on the independence of the sources. The repeated efforts of to sidetrack the discussion off into the red herring of journalistic ethics are starting to look some sort of disruption tactic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
It is disappointing to see Montanabw continue to trot out the same red herring again. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC) In other words, notability requires that both those conditions are met ... and the word "presumed" is used there because in some instances, even those two conditions are insufficient. It does not mean, as Montanabw falsely claims, that an AFD discussion must somehow "disprove" notability. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, bottom line of the extensive discussion above is that publications owned by an organization cold not be considered independent, third-part sources when they cover members of the same organization, and do not count towards GNG. In case of LSD, I personally take their reliability too with a grain of salt. Sentences such as "Elder Octaviano Tenorio Domínguez knows that receiving the ordinances of the temple changes lives. It’s changed his, and he’s been in positions to see it change others’. “Stay close to the temple,” he urges." or "Doing well in his job in the publishing industry, he was not sure about taking the new position. But following a series of inspired events, he realized it was a job he was supposed to take." (excerpts from the Liahona profile, the main referencence of the article ) are hardly examples of independent journalism. Also, in this case even such coverage appears scarce, and routinely. If Tenorio's figure and position were really important, it would not be difficult to find genuine third-part sources about him. I would support a redirect if there was an appropriate target. Cavarrone 08:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The "specialty publication" argument is a particularly weak one, that would be like saying that Variety is not an RS for information about movie stars or we can't use an article from Dog Fancy about the winner of the Westminster Dog Show. The definition of "independent" is "independent of the subject."  Here, Mr. Tenorio clearly does not own the Mormon Church or the Deseret News.  The Salt Lake Tribune is completely independent, and is support for the other sources.  Keep in mind that WP:N, the policy here, is very simple and here is met. There is a presumption of notability and the burden is upon AfD to prove that the subject is not notable. That burden has not been met.  The material is reliable and independent of the subject.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  17:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You just fail to take the point, I never used a "specialty publication" argument, I am absolutely fine with specialty publications. Variety is NOT owned by a Hollywood studio, it is owned by Penske Media Corporation, hence it is independent from the film producers/distributors/etc. of the films they review. If  Variety was owned by Warner Bros., it would be certainly considered not independent, particularly when reviewing films produced by Warner Bros.  Deseret News, Liahona and other BYU publications are OWNED by the Church, and their articles about LDS personalities most of the times read like press releases. My argument is about their lack of independence, lack of neutrality, lack of criticism, no neutral point of view, obvious conflicts of interests, and bottom line, questionable reliability. They are not "independent of the subject", the actual subject being LDS Church. Notability could not be established on "articles" such as this one. And about the  Salt Lake Tribune article, it is a trivial mention in an article about a scandal involving Tenorio's brother, as said above multiple times it is not significant coverage by a country mile.  Cavarrone  19:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that raised the "specialty publication" red herring before in this discussion, and was refuted by  and by me, in much the same terms as .  Monatanabw replied to neither me nor User:BU Rob13.
 * PS OoopS! I missed another red herring: 's claim that There is a presumption of notability and the burden is upon AfD to prove that the subject is not notable. This is just one of many blatant misrepresentations that Montanabw has introduced into the discussion. WP:N actually says A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
 * Articles are created with an assumption of good faith. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please remember WP:AGF.  My arguments are cogent and have not been refuted by IDONTLIKEIT misunderstanding of GNG. Fox News is "biased," The Nation is "biased," yet routinely used as a RS, and so on. Any of these arguments go to the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence of notability.  An LDS publication is no more "biased" than a right-wing or left-wing political publication, or a publication by any faith-based group. (all that said, I also find it fascinating that I am defending an AfD by someone who is typically a very strong (over 90% !vote) deletionist, and so I do think that  needs to stop by and put at least as much energy into this as I am).   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  23:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You've drawn a poor analogy. Here's a better one: The problems Deseret News has from being the primary basis for this article are the problems we would have if The Nation was the sole source for E. L. Godkin or Carey McWilliams's Wikipedia articles.  p  b  p  03:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That only would make sense if Tenorio had been an editor, or part of the editorial board of the Deseret News. Most if not all of Elder Tenorio's assignments as a general authority were in the Mexico (and maybe also Central America) Areas. There is no evidence he ever served on the board of Deseret Management Corporastion the closest present general authorities get to being overseers directly connected with the Deseret News. If he had been on that board, I guess the analogy might work, although DMC is a holding company that owns the Deseret News, but the Deseret News has more specific boards and editors, presidents etc. who actually run it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment from WP:Assume good faith: Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.
 * Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply please read WP:AGF before "[Insert begins here.] * Notice: Text that was here was deleted 2016-07-15T23:50:18, diff * Notice: Text was restored using blockquote 2016-07-16T01:52:07, diff * Notice: Text was refactored below 2016-07-16T08:26:44, diff * Notice: Text was restored 2016-07-16T15:07:33, diff * Notice: Text was refactored below 2016-07-16T15:13:11, diff Insert posted 07:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)] [Insert ends here.]"making a vague wave at it. In particular note the 5th sentence of para 1: the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary.
 * In this case, the evidence to the contrary includes repeated misrepresentation of other editors, and repeated misrepresentations of policy. (I'll diff-farm if we get to a drama-board, but it's all visible above).
 * In a message on my talk page, Montanabw has explained that their motives for supporting this article are a) concern that Mormons are discriminated against in the real world; b) that Wikipedia is systemically biased in favour of some topics such as sport and porn, and that Mormons deserve the same generosity.
 * Whatever the philosophical merits of those assertions, neither of those arguments is based in policy which Montanabw has cited: WP:N. Instead of making an open and honest argument for either a policy change, or for a relaxation in the case of this article, Montanabw has thrown up a smokescreen of misrepresentations. As I noted in a length reply on my talk page, Montanabw's approach to this discussion has been fundamentally dishonest, and a clear breach of WP:DGF. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * * Notice: Text was refactored here from above 2016-07-16T08:26:44, diff * Notice: Text that was here was un-refactored and a comment left here 2016-07-16T15:07:33, diff * Notice: (1) A comment that was here was deleted, and (2) text was refactored from above 2016-07-16T15:13:11, diff Posted 07:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice The following edit is attributed to me but was made by another editor.  Note how the font size of the phrase "Insert begins here" is not the same as the font size of "Insert ends here".  And what is the meaning of "insert begins here"?  And what premise is being discussed?  Also note that the small font size now extends through the next edits by Montanabw and BHG.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

For a fuller explanation, see my lengthy reply to you on my talk page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * [insert begins here] Sorry, but your premise is incorrect. Unscintillating (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC) [insert ends here]
 * WOW. I don't know why you have only responded here after my last set of comments at your talk page, but I am going to insist upon an apology once again. I am expressing my sincerely held opinion here and you need to knock it off with these accusations of bad faith and nefarious motives.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  10:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I made a brief reply while taking time between other activities to write a long reply on my talk, which is not yet finished. You can insist all you like on whatever you like, but my summary reply will remain: WP:DGF. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , please do so yourself, and start by striking your "shame on you" comment, and follow that by striking your comments here and there about "smokescreen of misrepresentations" and " fundamentally dishonest." Those comments are completely inappropriate.  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I repeat. Your conduct in this discussion has been fundamentally dishonest, because you have engaged in a smokescreen of misrepresentations, in pursuit of a policy change which you should have pursued at a centralised venue. You should clean up your act, and WP:DGF.
 * And I repeat, you are out of line to say my conduct is "fundamentally dishonest, because you have engaged in a smokescreen of misrepresentations" I did actually start an RfC for clarification (not "change") on the topic, but I am not going to roll over and not participate at AfD while that goes on.  I strongly suggest you drop that particular stick now and strike all comments to me of that nature.  Your conduct is beginning to be unbecoming of an administrator.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  18:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Where's the RfC? Also,, while I wouldn't say you've been dishonest, I would say you have misinterpreted what I and others have said in this thread and/or gone off on some bad tangents.  I also get the feeling you are displeased that something like this can't be included while porn stars and minor cricketers can.  That is a side effect of WP:N/WP:42: dependence on what is covered in secondary sources.  This displeasure, however, is not entirely germane, and has lead you to venture into the realm of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.   p  b  p  19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So General authority may meet GNG, but the current state of the article offers only borderline evidence for that. If there are more sources, they should be added, so I will tag is with third party-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; that list article could and should contain more information on all the General Authorities. It is almost a WP:BIO1E.  Similarly for most of the others.  Thorough in-house coverage of the people in the church belongs somewhere such as http://tech.lds.org, but not here.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A redirect would at least preserve the article history should the position of people change. Redlinks just beg for being recreated.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  10:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection in principle to a merge to suitable target, and on first glance that does appear to be a suitable target. However, on that page I have found only sources which are emanations of the Mormon Church: either in-house publications, or the work of wholly-owned subsiduaries, such as Deseret News. If I have missed something, then I will be be happy to be corrected ... but so far, it appears that the list does not meet WP:GNG. So I have tagged the list with notability and third-party in the hope of encouraging editors to add independent sources. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The list article is a justified spinout of General authority, a clearly notable topic. As a spinout, it gets an easier run.  As WP:V compliant material, Octaviano Tenorio and other individuals of that rank can be covered without needing to meet the GNG.  The GNG covers only the question of whether the topic should be a stand alone article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, in principle. However, I see only two possibly-independent sources in General authority. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is semi-official, so it's marginal. The other possibly-independent source is a 2009 article in the The Salt Lake Tribune, which since 1952 has been part of the Newspaper Agency Corporation, an operations joint-venture with the mormon-owned Deseret News.  The article appears to imply that 2 papers are editorially independent, but it's not clear.
 * Comment, Wow!, as a young WP:wikicat, it has been fascinating to follow this epic battle ahem, discussion(over 7thousand words!:)) between such experienced wikieditors. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC) ps. apologies if my previous comment is taken as a criticism, it is not, rather i genuinely admire the effort taken and arguments used by both sides of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Would be nice if we set a better example for the children, true 'dat.. Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)  Correction, I meant to suggest that we are all about to climb the Reighstag.  Best we just drop the discussion and see if anyone else wants to weigh in.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  18:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG in the end; so he served in "various positions", not notable and even if he has since been promoted up-the-ladder, so to speak, not inherently notable. Kierzek (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The behavioral guideline WP:TPG states, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning,..."  An editor has quietly removed one of my posts.  Removing a post without leaving a comment unambiguously changes meaning.  I am restoring the post, and the comment here provides notice to editors of the restoration.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just to point out that a thread re the independence of the Deseret News is here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There's not a lot a certainty in the replies, or many replies at all, because ultimately it's a hard question to answer with confidence. But I guess the general vibe is that the news side is independent enough of the Church. I'm certainly not getting the feeling there "No sane person could consider the Deseret News to be independent of the Church", which I kind of feel like I'm getting from some editors here.


 * Just to remind, the Church News section of the Deseret News is the source of this full mini-bio (which is certainly in-depth coverage), and the general paper is the source of this article where the article subject is described and quoted and the center of which he is chief is described extensively. Assumeing the Deseret News is independent, that's probably enough to satisfy WP:GNG, although its arguable.


 * I guess one way to think of it it like, if the Sports section of the Boston Globe has a short bio of a Red Sox minor leaguer... would that count toward his notability? The Globe is a big paper but it is is really beholden to its readership which has an outsize interest in Red Sox trivia, and the Kansas City papers etc. would not print this info. It's a similar situation here with the Deseret News and LDS personnel maybe.


 * (The Red Sox don't own the Globe and the LDS Church does own the News... and that could be defining difference, but if and only if officers of the Church relate to the paper's editors on the level of "Print these press releases and that's a direct order" or at least "...if you want your career to thrive". My best guess is that it's more like a lot of the News readership is Mormons, and the editors figure that they're interested in this stuff. It's hard to know for sure.)


 * Anyway, at this point I would suggest that WP:PRESERVE be invoked and lets keep the article and look at it in year when everyone has calmed down. Herostratus (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No need to do that, Herostratus. Consensus has already formed as to whether or not this passes GNG; there is also a consensus that Deseret News isn't independent.  Also, most minor league baseball players that make the 40-man roster have sources other than their local papers; minor leaguers who don't make 40-man rosters don't often have articles created unless there is a great deal of sourcing.   p  b  p  02:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Time to close this as delete, says nom: This has been open the requisite week now. 10 people say this doesn't meet GNG and only 4 say it does.  That's pretty clearly consensus to delete.  p  b  p  02:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote. There are number of reasons for relisting this or closing it as a no consensus and looking at it again down the line. One is that, objectively, he's borderline. Another is, to be honest, the bad behavior exhibited by you and the rest of the gang over this whole issue -- I've now been egregiously insulted on three different pages over this matter, and it's all just uncalled for and brings up the question "do we really want to reward this kind of behavior?". And finally, the pressure, the frantic need you guys feel that you must see this article deleted... what's all that about? It doesn't give me a good feeling about this whole process. As I said, let's let new set of fresh eyes look at it in six months or a year. Is that so bad? Will that kill the Wikipedia? Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest that people who care about this individual article need to userfy the article in their own sandbox and work on it some more. (I will not be the one who does in this case) I remain concerned about the attitude about the LDS church in general, of BYU and the Deseret News: Yes, it has a slant, but I do agree that it is a legitimate journalism outlet and comparisons noted above are apt. I will reiterate what I have said earlier: there appears to be a systemic bias issue in the evaluation of this article's notability. Upon reflection, I think if so, it stems from ignorance, not malice, but I am concerned.  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  02:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , you defended your position by appealing to WP:AGF, then you are just making an egregious exercise of assuming bad faith accusing the ones who voted for deletion (the large majority of commentators, consisting of experienced editors including several administrators) of having bias towards the LDS church (and of being ignorant, too). It would be comical (especially considering WP has an impressive coverage of LDS topics, from obscure LDS films to almost every Latter Day Saint NN publication to each and every temple, not bad for a systemic biased anti-LDS encyclopedia) if it not was so insulting. Cavarrone 05:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you choose to characterise evidenced criticism of a lack of independence as "hostility". That's not AGF, and its not the way to "cool it". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I am going against the grain here because I too would normally base my decision on coverage or lack thereof in other mainstream sources with national coverage. However, it is apparent from the presented sources this person holds a position of authority to which the whole of the LDS church membership gives credence (at least 7 million?), and this makes him sufficiently notable. The sources appear reliable to me. Additonally, as Unscillintating pointed out above "Articles generally require significant coverage.... The phrase "generally require" seems to indicate there are (occasional or even rare) exceptions that are not covered by the mainstream press. I trust the sources presented. One thing that may have been missed in the Desert News editorial policy is that ethics are paramount in their reporting. I mean, that is essentially what those six or seven paragraphs are saying. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep We strive to be a comprehensive worldwide encyclopedia and there is established consensus that every Roman Catholic bishop is notable. I think the same presumption of notability should be extended to the 103 top Mormon leaders. If an article about a Catholic bishop was cited to L'Osservatore Romano and the National Catholic Reporter and books published by the academic presses of Catholic universities, I do not think that editors would be clamoring for deletion. Disclosure: I am a Jew who is a graduate of a Catholic university which has an outstanding Jewish Studies program. There seems to be undue hostility toward and distrust of Mormon newspapers and university presses among some editors, which I do not believe to be justified. This person is not on the staff or editorial board of the Deseret Times and does not control the book publishing program at BYU. Some advocates on both sides in this debate have fallen into the trap of repeating the same arguments over and over again, while escalating aspersions against their opponents. This is a worrying trend. People should make their best case once, and then step back, except to offer newly discovered information, or to respond to direct questions. AfD debates should not devolve into the Battle of Gettysburg. Cool it, people. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply Poor comparators. All the sources in this article are wholly-owned by the Mormon Church itself. Of your two comparators, the National Catholic Reporter is not owned nor controlled by the Catholic Church, whereas the sources say that L'Osservatore Romano is a "semi-official" publication. So NCR is independent, but LOR is not.
 * The reason why BHG, Neil and I are critical of keep votes, including yours, is that they either misinterpret policy or ignore it. Can you back your keep vote up with policy?  p  b  p  13:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , when making a recommendation to keep an article, my decision is informed by the purposes of Wikipedia, by foundational principles, and by policies, guidelines and respected essays. My goal is always to improve the encyclopedia with every edit I make. According to WP:PURPOSE, "Wikipedia is intended to be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written," and Jimmy Wales has famously said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Notability is a guideline, not a policy, and the idea we must cite sources that are independent of the topic is also a guideline, not a policy. Source independence is sometimes not black and white, and requires interpretation and good judgement. Verifiability is a core content policy, but there is nothing in that policy that requires that the sources we cite be independent of the topic. WP:Independent sources, which makes a stringent argument for absolute source independence is an essay, not a policy nor a guideline. Ignore all rules is a policy, which says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I am a strong supporter of Editorial discretion, which values intelligent human judgement over rote, mechanical application of rules and regulations.


 * Regarding the case at hand, I believe that an encyclopedia which strives to be "the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written" ought to include verifiable biographies of members of the Mormon General authority, just as we include biographies of bishops of major religious denominations. Such biographies, in my view, are part of the "sum of all human knowledge" which should be freely accessible to all people


 * In conclusion, please do not insist that other editors base their arguments on policies, when your own argument is based only on guidelines. I am confident that my own argument is legitimate and worthy of consideration, though I am aware that some other editors may come to a different conclusion. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cullen, a great deal of what you said could be used to justify keeping anything and everything ever created. When taken individually, they make sense.  When put together, they make IDONTLIKEIT.  p  b  p  02:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting,, that when you asked me to cite policies in support of my argument to keep this article, I took a lot of time to explain that there is no policy whatsoever that mandates 100% independent sources, and to explain my thinking in detail. And yet, you do not respond to the substance of my remarks in any way. As for "IDONTLIKEIT", you are accidentally correct that I do not like the teachings or theology of the Mormon church. I profoundly disagree with them. But I set aside my personal feelings, because I believe that this grand encyclopedia ought to furnish biographical details about that church's clearly defined top leadership, just as we ought to have verifiable articles about all state and provincial legislators. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cullen's key argument is "ought to include verifiable biographies of members of the Mormon General authority, just as we include biographies of bishops of major religious denominations." You and I might disagree, but it's not justifying "keeping anything and everything ever created." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ...a line of thinking that is not supported by SNGs OR GNG, and is failing in a proposal right now. Saying that "all BLAHs are notable", particularly without independent sources or SNGs to say they are, is inherently an ILIKEIT argument.  And the rest of Cullen's argument is inherently bad and could be theoretically used to keep any article.  Cullen would have done better to not bury the lead in pages like PURPOSE or IAR that allow you to do essentially whatever the hell you want.  p  b  p  04:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the one who asked me to cite policies,, and in my lengthy reply I discussed several policies, including Verifiability (which does not require independent sources), and Ignore All Rules, which is both long established policy and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. In response, you do not cite policiesbut rather guidelines, which all include caveats saying that occasional exceptions are permitted. It seems that you feel free to dismiss policies that you do not like, and insist on ironclad adherence to guidelines that you do like instead. Can't you see the contradiction there? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't, Cullen. You're trying to say this whole nomination is an IDONTLIKEIT fest on my part, when in fact 'tis your argument which is most rooted in personal belief rather than policy/guidelines.  The more you say your argument is rooted in policy, the less I actually believe it.  The crux of your argument is your personal belief (a belief not backed by any sort of policy or guideline) that all high-ranking church officials are notable.  You've clad this ILIKEIT argument with the veneer of the policies of IAR and PURPOSE.  Two policies whose invocation is highly, highly subjective.  Two policies that don't really address this specific issue.  Two policies so amorphously written that they can't/shouldn't be used to justify most actions.  Two policies which, if used with any kind of regularity, would plunge this project into chaos.  Even though you claim policy, Cullen, you're still advancing a rather poor argument that should be discounted by the closing admin.  p  b  p  15:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned or alluded to IDONTLIKETHAT regarding your argument, and as a matter of fact, have not analyzed or critiqued your argument. All I have done is express another opinion. You asked for policies and I responded with policies, both of which are enshrined in Wikipedia culture. In other words, you want us to base our decision on the policies you approve of, and you think that we should reject policies that you think are "amorphously written". You seem heavily invested in this debate, as evidenced by your bolder imperatives, insisting that the article be deleted post haste. I, on the other hand, am completely happy with whatever consensus turns out to be. Because it is consensus, after all, that prevents me or any other editor from keeping or deleting anything we wish. If consensus is to delete in this case, and more broadly, consensus is that we should have far fewer biographies of the senior leaders of the Mormon church, then I can live with that. I am not going to insist in bold faced comments that anyone do anything, but will accept consensus instead. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, why are you bringing up verifiability? While verifiability doesn't mandate independent sources, notability does.  This nomination is one concerned about notability, not verifiability.  p  b  p  15:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Because verifiability is a core content policy, and you asked for policies. Notability is not a policy, it is a guideline. The strict definition of an independent source is neither a policy nor a guideline, but is rather an essay. That's why. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have to explicitly invoke IAR when discussing content then your argument is really, really weak. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , my friend, I mentioned IAR (which remains policy after all) only because PBP asked me to mention policies. This may well be the first time I have invoked IAR in my 42,000 edits here, so it is not a habit on my part. I sincerely believe that the ongoing effort to delete biographies of the senior worldwide leaders of the Mormon church is a very bad thing for the encyclopedia, but at the same time, I know others disagree. I respect consensus and will accept the outcome of this debate without complaint. I certainly will not go about insisting that people do various things in boldfaced comments written in an imperative tone. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If it really was a bad thing to delete senior leaders of the Mormon Church, either a) we'd have a specific notability guideline saying they have to be kept (said guideline is currently failing at WT:N), or b) independent sources would exist for each of them. p  b  p  13:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The substance of your complaint here is that it was fine for you to edit my comment, but not fine for me to restore my comment to the way I wrote it. You are trying to have it both ways. Stop being so silly. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Comment An editor has refactored one of my edits and IMO the refactoring has changed the meaning.  The edit was done without providing notice to other editors of the change, i.e., it was a quiet change.  With this edit I am restoring the meaning of the original edit, and with this comment I am notifying editors that there are changes in the record only visible in the edit history.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * there is nothing complicated or underhand here. Add your comment after the comments of others, rather than inserting text into the middle of my comment. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Citing policies, guidelines, and fundamental principles is what carries weight. There is now a second incident in which you have deleted one of my comments.  Added to that is a new problem in that you have repeated a refactoring of one of my comments after I have objected to the refactoring.  Regarding the later, WP:TPG states, "...normally you should stop if there is any objection."  WP:OWN states, "Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia."  When you posted to this talk page, you agreed that with clicking the "Save page" button "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution".  Unscintillating (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have sought only to revert your efforts to insert text into the flow of my comments. Stop doing that, and all will be fine. Read WP:TPOC to understand why. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * So it won't be fine under certain circumstances? That sounds like a threat.  And it is combined with another attempt to assert control using imperative mood.  Your escalations continue, just as with the charged word "underhand" in the previous post.  Yet the only explanation you've been able to find for your WP:TPG behavior is the word "flow"?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * as I wrote before, there is nothing complicated or underhand here. Add your comment after the comments of others, rather than inserting text into the middle of my comment.
 * I'm looking at your post, and it has no links to policy or quotes from policy. I see two more cases of imperative mood, and two more cases of charged language.  You "irrevocably agree[d] to release your contribution" when you clicked on "Save page".  You are no longer the owner of the copyright.  Your latest defense for your multiple WP:TPG incidents is that you like your text the way you first posted it.  That is WP:OWN behavior, and is not supported by our WP:OWN policy, nor the fundamental principle that we are here to make an encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You are effectively saying that the paper would feel no sense of loyalty or deference to one of its owners. That's a strange proposition. What is the difference between this linkage and, e.g. a wholly-owned publication of a political party being used as evidence for the notability of one of its senior members? It seems to me that allowing this sort linkage amounts to throwing the concept of independence out the window, and I very much doubt that this redefinition of "independence" would ever gain a broad community consensus. I do appreciate that some editors want to see this article kept, but their approach to independence is, to put it mildly, very odd. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC) As to defining independence, are you really saying that a newspaper is wholly independent of a person unless that person is the sole proprietor of it? Really? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC) "Flat out wrong" is simply an assertion, not a reason based in policy, and it is a rather hostile assertion. I'll overlook the hostility, but press you again to clarify: are you really saying that a newspaper is wholly independent of a person unless that person is the sole proprietor of it? Really? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - First off, Deseret News is a newspaper of presumed reliability and counts towards notability even if it is not owned by Rupert Murdoch or Silvio Berlusconi. This is arguably a GNG pass based on that. THIS indicates at one point he was #3 in Mexico, which might not ring the bell for automatic notability but does indicate general magnitude of importance. I think the true mark of notability is the sourced claim that he heads the church's second largest missionary training program. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG requires that sources must be both reliable and independent. Deseret News is not independent of the Mormon church. Please can you identify the policy basis for your claim that rank in a church is evidence of notability? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You completely misconstrue "independent" here... It must be independent of the subject — who is Octaviano Tenorio, not the Mormon Church. Deseret News is a major American daily newspaper, no more or less reliable than the Christian Science Monitor (which would similarly be perfectly fine as a source for an individual who happens to be a Christian Scientist, even though the paper is owned by the church). You simply have the wrong conception of what "independent" means in this case... Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Your concept of independent would have us use the press releases of companies touting their latest hire as proof of notability. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As for policy, I hold that this subject meets GNG. Rank in the Mormon Church in Mexico is simply a factoid that might help non-Mormons grasp the subject's place in the hierarchy. Running the training school is definitely a valid assertion of significance, which all of our articles are supposed to make. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't add up. On one hand you assert that Tenorio's significance is based on his seniority in the Mormon Church ... but on the other hand, you claim that a newspaper wholly-owned by the organisation in which he is so senior is actually independent of him.  Sure, there's no evidence that he in any any ways controls Deseret News ... but both Tenorio and Deseret News are subject to whatever degree of discipline the said church chooses to apply to them.
 * He is notable because he has been more or less substantially covered multiple times in publications of presumed reliability. GNG pass. He is significant because he heads the second largest LDS missionary training school. The fact that the Mormon church owns the Deseret News is absolutely irrelevant to either of these propositions. If Mr. Tenorio were an editor for the Deseret News, for example, then the paper would not be independent of the subject. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, Carrite, your first two sentences are incomplete. GNG requires that sources must be both reliable and independent, but you award a GNG pass without assessing the independence test.
 * I have explained multiple times that your interpretation of "independent" is flat out wrong. I've stated my opinion on this topic. Please stop hectoring me. Carrite (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * this is a consensus-forming discussion, where policy is that "editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". That's what I am trying to do here: to persuade you by discussion, to re-examine the apparent contradictions in your explanations.


 * I've participated in something in the ballpark of 3,000 deletion debates. This is about the second or third hardest far and away the worst I've been badgered over my opinion in all of that time. You're not going to convince me; I'm not going to convince you. I will leave it up to the community and to the closing administrator as to who is interpreting the notion of "independence" of sources correctly and who is off base. The fact that you seem so obsessed with a deletion on this point makes one wonder why you feel so strongly about this nomination. Carrite (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Upgraded estimate of badgering... Carrite (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The subject has achieved more than President of the Missionary Training Center in Mexico. He achieved a global or international leadership position beginning in 2007., which I think I essentially said before. This seems to translate into having significant impact and appears to pass WP:ANYBIO #2: " The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.". Steve Quinn (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This of course depends on one's interpretation of the arguments and sources presented. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you see the footnote? 'Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians.' What sources meet this criteria? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – after reading the article and the above discussion I share Carrite's view, namely that the sources are sufficiently independent of the subject to be acceptable. Oculi (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why do people insist on bringing up WP:V in this discussion? Yes, WP:V doesn't care about independence.  No, WP:V is NOT GERMANE to this discussion.  This discussion is based on notability, not verifiability.  Notability does care about independence.  Any argument based primarily on WP:V rather than WP:N should be summarily discounted by the closing admin.  p  b  p  15:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE C1 states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." There is broad agreement here that reliable sources exist.  There is less agreement about notability, but the significance of this topic within the encyclopedia as a part of LDS is not really disputed.  WP:BEFORE B4 states, "Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia."  WP:BEFORE B4 shows that this topic is included elsewhere within Wikipedia.  So a redirect as a minimum is established, and since the edit history contains WP:RS material, delete and redirect would not be policy based.  The remaining issues of whether various topics are suitable for merge, are all within the remit of "normal editing".  Even your argument of "independence", which I think is based on casting aspersions, you identify as part of "notability", so in the current context of a significant topic it is not an argument for deletion.  In short, you've got no policy-based argument for deletion.  If you want to rehabilitate your argument, I suggest you need to focus on why this topic should not be mentioned on Wikipedia, and why the world at large has no reason to learn about this topic.  I suggest you may also need to combat the tone of religious intolerance in this discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable schmeliable, what matters is independent: As I and User:BrownHairedGirl have said numerous times, the sources in the article are INDEPENDENT of the topic. In order to pass WP:N, there must be sources independent of the topic. Therefore, the article must be deleted.  Also, Unscintillating, to claim that there is religious intolerance is just trying to score cheap empathy points for an inherently flawed argument.  p  b  p  20:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That flatly contradicts the policy at WP:DEL8, which is that an article may be deleted for lack of notability, whereas you say that notability is not grounds for deletion. You also say that notability here is not unlike that for WP:NPOL ... whereas the policy is that there is no NPOL equivalent for church people, so in fact it is totally unlike NPOL. So on both points, your !vote is quite clearly not just unfounded in policy, but diametrically opposed to it. The closer is therefore obliged to disregard it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC) However, your !vote doesn't say "merge+redirect" or "delete+redirect"; it says "keep", which means do neither. What you are trying to do here is to sidestep the need for AFD to first make a decision on notability, and then decide what to do about that. If the topic is notable, then normal editing can decide whether a standalone article is appropriate; but if it is non-notable, then the standalone option is off the table. So this AFD needs to decide whether the topic is notable. At that brings us back to the fact that all the remaining sources fail the independence part of the test, because they are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of the organisation in which Tenorio is a senior officer. The comment also alleges a "tone of religious intolerance"; but the only such tone I have seem is from you and others who openly make unfounded allegations of religious bigotry against editors who point out that wholly-owned sources are not independent. That's really scurrilous behaviour; shame on you. I note too that you tell pbp to focus on why this topic should not be mentioned on Wikipedia, and why the world at large has no reason to learn about this topic. As you should know from all the policy quotes, that is total misrepresentation of the effect of deletion. First, Wikipedia is not the only place where people can learn about things; it is just one publication. And secondly, your claim that deleting the article would remove all mention of Tenorio from Wikipedia is a blatant straw man; he would still be mentioned in the list article. You also wrote I'm not opposed to a spinout of List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for biographies, especially for Emeritus (retired) members, but this is an issue for the content contributors to consider. No, actually, it's not. Per WP:SPLIT, the splitout articles must themselves be notable; you can't use a split as a bypass around GNG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep No substantive argument for deletion here.  Notability here is a minor issue to be determined by the content contributors.  Notability here is not unlike that for WP:NPOL #1.  The content contributors might even decide that while the topic is notable, they'd prefer to merge some biographies for organizational reasons.  I'm not opposed to a spinout of List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for biographies, especially for Emeritus (retired) members, but this is an issue for the content contributors to consider.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When did "the sources of this article are not independent of the subject" not become a substantive argument? Your keep vote (and most of your comments above) ignore WP:N, which is the crux of the issue of this AfD. And what the hell does "content contributors" have to do with this?  Any editor, whether or not he has edited Octaviano Tenorio, is entitled to participate in this deletion discussion or any subsequent discussions.  Not that there need to be any additional discussions, because policy dictates that this article MUST be deleted.  p  b  p  20:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit summary, I suggest the editor review this information page. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply please clarify the policy basis for your assertion that Notability is a minor issue to be determined by the content contributors.  So far as I can see, if that were so, then 95% of AFDs would be procedurally closed as groundless ... but since you apparently believe that notability is not grounds for deletion, please explain what policy overrides WP:DEL8. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you don't show that you've read my post, that would be the place to start, diff. Making a nonsense statement about what I "apparently believe" is typical for your standard practice in this AfD of escalation on every post.  I had a high level of respect for your work when I first posted to you in this AfD.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You called notability a "minor issue" above, so it seems reasonable to say it's not high on your list of things you care about in this AfD. Regarding your diff, we seem to be back to the issue of caring about reliability of sources rather than independence of them.  Policy/guidelines says you've got to care about the latter.  FWIW, above you also seem to be arguing that a upper-level religious leader is the same thing as a politician.  Religion isn't politics.  Furthermore, consider why NPOL exists in the first place: politicians are almost always covered in reliable, independent news media.  The same can't be said for religious officials, especially not this one.  p  b  p  21:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Almost always" is not "always", but the politician or judge is still wp:notable. Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Unscintillating before accusing anyone of a "nonsense statement", re-read what you wrote. The context is that after discussion, you posted a !vote in which you wrote No substantive argument for deletion here. Notability here is a minor issue to be determined by the content contributors.
 * I see that your response doesn't get past the third word without yet another escalation. The response continues to take my statements out of their context and adds to that the taking of a policy statement out of context; while ignoring the policy foundation in my post.  I suggest that your next response show that you have read that post, diff.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, enough of the bluster. The context of your words were a !vote in which you advocated a "keep" on the apparent basis that AFD had no role in deciding notability.  Your later wall of quotes is from the deletion procedural page, not from a policy document.  However, taking them all on face value, they sum up the procedural options of how to act on a finding of non-notability.
 * With your statement, "he would still be mentioned in the list article", you support retention of this topic as significant after the AfD. This means that you no longer have a case to delete the topic as a redirect.  If you have no case to delete the topic as a redirect, you also have no case to delete the reliable material in the edit history, so you have no case for delete and redirect.  At that point, you have no more case for the use of admin tools.  At that point, AfD has no more role to play.  That which is left are content issues.  WP:Deletion policy specifies that AfDs that are content issues may be moved to the talk page of the article by any editor.  Do you want me to change my !vote to wrong forum?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, you've essentially now said that just be the article is mentioned in another article, it must be kept. That doesn't compute, sorry.  p  b  p  13:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, "must" is an exaggeration, so it doesn't compute because it is a straw man, but the WP:Alternatives to Deletion is a policy. Unscintillating (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with BHG. Unscintillating, you're misrepresenting what we've said to try and get an emotional appeal to your side.  You've come very close to accusing BHG and I of bigotry and censorship, which is wholly inaccurate.  p  b  p  04:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Further comment. WP:NPOL#1 says, "judges who have held international...office". I dug into the polity enough to know that at least some of the seventy are explicitly judges.  All of the general authorities have world-wide jurisdiction and are members of the priesthood, where, as per Priesthood (LDS Church) "the priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God for the salvation of humankind".  That sounds like a judge to me.  There may well be better doctrinal references, as Melchizidek was from the Old Testament, but like I said, this is an issue for the content contributors.  I've also reviewed JPLs analysis, and concur that WP:GNG is met.  The nominator tries to dismiss the articles in the Salt Lake Tribune as having "one sentence", but this one sentence is key to the entire article, and helps verify the idea that WP:NPOL#1 is relevant.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a stretch. If they wanted to mention high-ranking religious leaders in NPOL, they'd have done so.  p  b  p  04:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That which they mentioned was "judges". Your edit comment is "religious leaders aren't judges!"  Once again, AfD regulars don't have the content knowledge to make the notability decisions that content contributors can make.  Book of Judges says, "Its title describes its contents: it contains the history of Biblical judges, divinely inspired leaders whose direct knowledge of Yahweh allows them to act as champions for the Israelites..."  The preceding matches nicely with the description of LDS priesthood in my previous post above.  Biblical judges says, "While judge is the closest literal translation of the Hebrew term used in the Masoretic text, the position is more one of unelected non-hereditary leadership than that of legal pronouncement."  Suffice it to say that religious leaders can be judges, and the seventy can be understood to be judges.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Seriously, it's time to delete this (nom comment): We've been going on for nine days now, and it's blatantly clear to me the only policy-supported action is deletion, as no independent sources are in this article, and therefore criteria #8 for deletion is met.  Some of the arguments advanced here are highly specious, ranging from saying that WP:N doesn't matter to confusing reliability with independence to referencing specific notability guidelines that don't exist to falsely complaining of bias and persecution to just ignoring all rules.  Not the kind of arguments to justify keeping this.  Please close ASAP, as delete  p  b  p  20:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop using the word "delete" in bold type, it smacks of double voting — or in your case, triple voting. Switching you up to italics, thanks. Carrite (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't refactor my comments,  p  b  p  04:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Label your comments in bold as comments and nobody will feel compelled to fix anything for you. Carrite (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It occurs to me that if this discussion closes as keep, editors will have succeeded in creating a de facto WP:SNG without doing the work or getting broad community consensus for an actual WP:SNG. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Especially disturbing since the actual discussion to establish one is failing to generate such.  p  b  p  04:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - That statement is patently absurd. Deseret News is the largest daily newspaper in the largest city in the state of Utah. Carrite (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And that matters why? Just because a lot of people read Deseret News doesn't make it independent of the LDS church.  p  b  p  14:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not absurd at all. Look at all the keep arguments that include something like, "this person is notable because this group of people should be notable". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since the nominator was all too eager to count votes very early in this debate to create the illusion of some sort of consensus to delete, I thought I would do a little counting of my own. Number of posts in this thread: Purple Back Pack (Pro-delete, nominator) 34; BrownHairedGirl (Pro-delete) 33; Unscintillating (Pro-Keep) 23, many in response to pings; Carrite (Pro-keep) 10, several in response to pings; MontanaBW (Pro-Keep) 17, several in response to pings; NeilN (Pro-delete) 9; John Pack Lambert (pro-Keep, creator) 7... Carrite (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Carrite, us deletionists have got you both ways: there are more of us, and we have better arguments. GNG is on our side as this article lacks significant independent coverage.  p  b  p  15:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Abitrary break 2 (summarize the issue, request relist)
Sheesh, can we get a moritorium on further comments from people who have commented, like, thirty or so times? I think we have got the gist of your arguments. Maybe we want to relist this and get some fresh voices here.

For the benefit of he newcomers: there's little question that Octaviano Tenorio is a borderline case, the question being what side of the line he falls on, and the specific questions being: And again, there are editors who think that these aren't even questions, that to ask if the Deseret News is independent is to answer it: it's not, period. Other editors are not so sure, and a noticeboard thread shows differing opinions. At any rate, if you've made your point one way or the other exhaustively, please leave some room for new voices, thanks.
 * 1) Is the Deseret News (which is owned by the Mormon church), and the Church News insert thereof, sufficiently independent of the subject for the purpose of WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article
 * 2) If it is, do these two refs constitute "significant coverage": New MTC Presidents with a mini-bio and article with a mention and quote about the MTC of which Tenorio is president.
 * 3) If the answers to #1 and #2 are "well, borderline", to what extent do the other (non-independent refs) and the subject's undisputed importance (not the same as notability!) militate to swing the decision toward keeping the article, per WP:IAR or whatever?

And I request a relist from an uninvolved persons to this end. Herostratus (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It would have been nice for a summary like this to make a greater effort at neutrality than to dismiss concerns about independence as being the product of people who don't brook discussion :(
 * One of the persistent difficulties so far has been that some editors have confused or conflated the GNG test of "intellectual independence" with the separate (though related) questions of neutrality, bias and journalistic ethics. That conflation has generated much of the heat and dispute, as some editors have tried to cast an assessment of non-independence as an allegation of unethical journalism, or demanded evidence of bias.
 * There has also been a persistent meme of smearing concerns about the conflict of interest here as being motivated by religious bigotry. I hope that there will be no more of that. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Piggybacking on what BHG, keepist editors seem to a) be registering seemingly every complaint possible about deletionist editors in an attempt to discredit them, and b) there seems to be a dispute as to whether or not to ignore GNG. How can we decide to keep or delete an article if we can't even agree on whether or not the basic rules for deletion apply or not?  (If they do, it's pretty clear this violates them and should be deleted).  p  b  p  23:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP:GNG, WP:N, does not mandate deletion if there is a viable merge target. The GNG has no bearing on whether the merge target is viable, for that refer to WP:DUE.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Herostratus' #1. No, Deseret News is the mouthpiece of the LDS Church, although it does well covering non-church matters.  I agree that the topic fails the WP:GNG.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "Independent" of the subject. As I stated earlier. The point I made earlier is that it is independent of Tenorio, he doesn't own it... A Fox News story on Rupert Murdoch would not be independent, but a Fox News story on (insert GOP candidate name here) would be adequately so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Montanabw. Unless I misunderstand, the subject's BIO1E claim is that he holds a senior rank within the church.  He is a senior member and senior representative of the church that owns the newspaper, and I definitely consider that non-independent with respect to the notability test.  Neither would I agree that anyone whose coverage is from Fox News stories alone has sufficient coverage, noting that Fox has political affiliations and pervading biases.  Additional coverage from another source independent of Fox would make a difference.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Roger Ailes and Sean Hannity don't "own" Fox News, so can their articles be sourced entirely from Fox News-related sites? Because Ailes and Hannity are more analogous to Tenorio's relationship to the LDS Church than McCain and Trump are.  p  b  p  04:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm disappointed but not surprised that the editors who appear have a... ah, remarkably vigorous... desire to see this article deleted at all cost and any cost continue to scorch the earth to that end.

Whatever. Your words speak for themselves and there's nothing I need add that could make you look any more unhinged on this subject. I asked you to quiet down after 30+ post and leave some space for new voices, but you won't and probably can't, so OK. My take though is that we simply can't reward this kind of behavior if we're to thrive as a project, so I think that on that principle alone we need to close this as a keep or no consensus to delete. But let the person closing decide what's best for the project, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I get it. We're just supposed to shut up and take your  misinterpretation of policy and continual aspersions of us lying down.  I see.  p  b  p  04:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - The nominator, User:Purplebackpack89, has taken his hectoring and argumentative badgering and moved on to full on harassment on my talk page, from which he is banned — and from which he has been banned for approximately two years. Administrators please take notice, he is not to post on my talk page again. Block him for harassment if he does. Carrite (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong forum to discuss your talk page, there is no ban, and I was there to request that Carrite refrain from refactoring my comments, as he did here .  Carrite's response was exceeding childish: to swear at me and to continue refactoring comments here, here,  and here.  This is clearly an attempt by Carrite to wrongfully besmirch my name.  p  b  p  04:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You've already done an excellent job making a mockery of yourself at your own talk page, on which you have openly colluded with Brown Haired Girl and NeilN to set up and take action against the creator of this article LINK. Your plotting and trollery will come out in the ArbCom wash. Looking forward to seeing you there. Carrite (talk) 06:04, 19 July 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.