Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor Afrânio Asconavieta da Silva


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Víctor Afrânio Asconavieta da Silva

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this subject. It appears that virtually all coverage is published in primary sources, which does not establish notability, and none of the primary sources appear to constitute significant coverage either. The subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America1000 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

*Delete Not enough media coverage on the individual itself besides being in articles which are to broad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)  blocked sockpuppet, !vote struck. Yunshui 雲 水 07:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Have other people with the position of Area Seventy been kept at AfD? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 水 14:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Quick search, doesn't look like substantial RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - TL;DR: fails GNG, etc. Traditionally, bishops of major denominations "are notable by virtue of their status", even if sourcing is from that denomination. LDS bishops are specifically excluded from that, however ( disclaimer: not a Mormon, may contain inaccuracies ):
 * Ref Priesthood (LDS Church), LDS bishops < area authorities (Quorums 3+) < general authorities (Quorums 1-2) < Apostles < First Presidency
 * The general authorities exercise administrative and ecclesiastical authority. Area presidents are general authorities
 * Seventies consist of Quorums of up to 70 members aged 55+. Members of Quorum 1 are appointed for life but may go emeritus at 70. Members of Quorum 2 serve until release (but generally for 5-7 years, which would take them into their 60s) -- but may be promoted from Quorum 2 to Quorum 1
 * The LDS currently has ~109 general authorities, at a ratio of ~1 for every 135K Mormons (about 15m LDS members). There's about 1 bishop for every 250K Catholics, or 1 bishop for every 100K Anglicans, so this is a comparable ratio for general authorities, but not for area authorities.
 * There's thus a case to be made that (while other denominations' bishops retain de-facto notability) some level of the LDS hierarchy should treated equitably and endowed with the same status. This is probably the general authorities of Quorum 1 and above, though perhaps Quorum 2 as well for simplicity.
 * The area authorities of Quorums 3+ and below, however, should be considered to have no presumed notability, and would need to demonstrate that they meet GNG or an SNG. No evidence has been provided or found that the article's subject does. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per . The subject is not high up enough to rate as automatically notable, and there are zero sources otherwise. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.