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

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lino Alvarez[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claim to notability appears to be because of his status with the LDS church. Only sources are LDS church-related and/or fleeting. Since notability requires sources independent of the topic, fails GNG and should be deleted. p b p 15:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Alvarez is notable because of his service as a general authority in the LDS Church. Even if that service was only for a short-term call, he is still notable for the service he rendered in a Church that now claims 15 million members. If you propose that an article about Alvarez be nominated for deletion because he lacks notability or relevance or whatever other term you choose to employ, then you must also argue that articles about deceased prophets and apostles have no more relevance and should also be considered for deletion. Alvarez served in many capacities, before, during and after his time as a general authority. And that service makes him notable. I would be unalterably opposed to any motion to delete any article about any general authority because I still feel they are relevant and good sources of information for all who want to learn more about such people who have so served. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is not based in policy. We don't keep articles just because they are about people who served in a particular capacity, we keep articles if there are reliable sources about them. If this person really was notable, there would be more about him out there than a fleeting mention in the New York Times and the rest ripped from Mormon websites. That also goes for any LDS official, so if there are unsourced dead general authorities, they should be deleted too p b p 13:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As can be seen from his mention in the New York Times, Alvarez held major positions within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The sources used are not directly controled by Alvarez and reflect the fact that he was a major educational and religious leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in the times does not cover him in depth enough to attest notability, sorry. There is no policy or guideline that states that people holding Alvarez's position should be kept. Failing that, it defaults to GNG, which he fails p b p 04:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - in my view, a claim to notability could be made on one of three grounds so I will deal with them on that basis:

1. WP:GNG - no, the coverage available is from the church itself and so isn't independent, a key requirement of such coverage.

2. Principal of Benemerito Preparatory School - no, school principals are generally not considered notable for having held that position.

3. General authority - maybe. He was one of a group of about 100 church leaders for 5 years. We generally consider cardinals of the Catholic Church (perhaps a similar position in terms of rank) to be notable. But this is a much smaller organisation where individuals of that rank are responsible for far fewer people and elevation to the rank is not for life.

I don't really think that number 3 is enough, alone, to confer notability but it is by far the closest thing to a claim to notability this subject has. Failing the presentation of additional coverage in reliable sources, I'm inclined to think the article should be deleted. Stalwart111 07:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (there's not much to merge into that list) per discussion at other AFDs about various General authorities. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to either List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or to General authority. Not notable enough for an individual article perhaps, but collectively enough to list somewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.