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. The adduced sources evidently are not RS so the policy based arguments are to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Aoyagi[edit]

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

No sources outside of LDS Church News p b p 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To begin with, the claim of the sources is incorrect. There are other sources listed than the Church News. Secondly, as was explained earlier, due to their nature, members of the second quorum of the 70 meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fails GNG as written. All the sources are either written by Aoyagi himself or are connected with the body from which he draws his notability. There is no specific guideline that says general authorities are notable, so we defer to GNG, which this person fails. p b p 02:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the discussion on Randy D. Funk [1] where there were very convincing arguments put forward on why such articles should be kept. I have to say that this is part of a long-standing pattern of vexatious attacks on LDS related articles by pbp.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Convincing". LOL. Vojen's "argument" ignores GNG, which is the only relevant policy around here. As for the "vexatious attacks" argument, there are a lot of LDS-related articles out there that are not compliant with policy. It's not an attack to demand that they be in compliance. p b p 02:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in independent secondary sources, fails GNG and any relevant SNG. Article is mainly consisting of original research. Cavarrone 03:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Vojen's excellent argument here, his position of notability as a general authority of the LDS Church trumps GNG guidelines. That nomination failed. I feel confident this one will too, just as the Wilford W. Andersen article failed 2 nominations, the first because of a mass nomination and the second because of Vojen's argument. Presiding Bishopric members don't serve until death either. Are articles about them to be nominated for deletion as well? Where do we draw the line? As I mentioned on the Deletion Review Discussion for the Vinson article, where do we draw the line? There are other articles here on Wikipedia that use either entirely LDS-related sources or no sources at all, and I don't see them being nominated for deletion. I don't see why those articles aren't being contested, but these ones (being as heavy in LDS sources as they are) are being challenged. Next you'll be telling me that since past LDS church leaders are dead, their Wikipedia articles should be deleted, since they have no more relevance now that they are not alive. Where will it end? I still believe the better way (the higher road, if you will) would be to discuss article issues on the talk page before they are nominated for deletion. That's the whole purpose of talk pages--to deal with article issues. So I wonder why that isn't being done. I still think we do articles a great disservice by nominating them for deletion before we discuss issues relating to articles that aren't up to Wikipedia policy. I believe all articles created could meet Wikipedia policy if editors worked together trying to improve articles such as this instead of having to spend time discussing whether to delete or keep such articles before the real issues with them even have a chance to be addressed. At least, that's the way I see it. As with all deletion discussions, this will likely be my one and only comment. I've said what I came to say. I now leave it to the consensus to decide. At the outset, I would encourage those discussing this issue to remember to assume good faith on the part of each person posting and to be civil in the dialogue of the discussion. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The same argument applies here as for all of the Second Quorum of the Seventies. (See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_August_30, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Devn Cornish, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen (2nd nomination).)

Here is my position. GNG is not the appropriate standard for these people; it's a default standard that can provide for notability if none of the people standards apply. I would refer anyone to the people notability criteria if they really think GNG is the only relevant policy around here. Looking just at notability for people, high-ranking clergy generally come in based on the honor afforded to the position, the quasi-political authority that they hold, and the status as an expert in their fields afforded by the office.

A clear rule for clergy would be preferable, but the general concensus has been that high-ranking clergy are nonetheless notable even without one. The common denominator appears to be the office itself, not sources. If notability is established under the people standards, then "independent" sources are not required to source an article, just "reliable" sources. It's easy to conflate this standard with the GNG rules, but they are seperate standards. That said truly independent third-party sources are still best for a good article.

As sources are still important to show notability, below are primarily independent sources that demonstrate Aoyagi's status based on his office (these are not meant to show the kind of converage that would meet GNG, but rather to show how assumption of the office changes Aoyagi's notability). Not surprisingly the most substantive coverage of his work and ministry (wc?) is in the Japanese sources, but the English sources demonstrate essentially the same thing to a lesser degree. If the community insists on GNG, then I say delete the article. If however, the people notability standards apply (which I think they do), then the below sources should be sufficient to demonstrate the notability based on the office. From there it is just a question of reliable sources which the church-affiliate sources appear to be despite questions of independence. The blogs might not be as "reliable" for sourcing the article, but they can still serve in establishing notability.

English:

http://searchingthescriptures.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/helping-hands/ (Independent analysis of Aoyagi's teachings)

http://www.mission.net/japan/sendai/page.php?pg_id=5269 (independent account of need to secure Aoyagi and others after earthquake because of leadership role)

http://www.morumon.org/seniormissionarieswfhistory-19.htm (independent memoir mentioning young Aoyagi prior to his appointment)

http://elderjosephgandy.blogspot.com/ (missionary blog reference)

http://mormonendowment.com/734/mormon-temple-groundbreaking-in-sapporo-japan (blog reference)

Japanese:

www.geocities.jp/daiendow/ET/ET20100321.pdf (independent newsletter - one step above a blog, but not an established publication by any means - reporting on activities of church in Japan with extensive coverage of Aoyagi's activities)

www.geocities.jp/daiendow/ET/ET20100221.pdf (additional reference to Aoyagi from same newsletter source)

http://blog.goo.ne.jp/yoriissouno/e/1230e74f8e8bdd94260f79b922c6e5eb (independent blog mentioning instruction and guidance given by Aoyagi on a church visit)

http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/yamano0305/52053790.html (independent blog expressing excitement at Aoyagi's visit to the church in Ube in Yamaguchi-ken)

http://www.morumon.org/gospelsharingtabuchi.htm (independent blog post expressing awe and comfort at visit from Aoyagi during a time of illness)

http://www.morumon.org/newsroomapostleapr09.htm (unofficial translation of LDS news release with additional commentary on Aoyagi because of the local interest in Japan)

http://morumon.org/japanesemembersaoyagiarticleFeb2014.htm (independent analysis of an article that was published by Aoyagi to members of the LDS church in Japan - see p. 2-4 of http://ldschurch.jp/bc/content/Japan/local-page/2014/2014-02LocalForWeb.pdf for original article)

Sorry for the length, but about half of it is the sources themselves. -Vojen (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except for one problem, Vojen: Your "sources" are unreliable. They're just blogs that happen to mention Aoyagi's name. Also, your argument is predicated on ignoring GNG, which in my mind is a major no-no p b p 13:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I readily admitted they are not "reliable" enough for GNG. I included them to demonstrate that these guys are equivalent in standing to a Catholic bishop. They are reliable enough for that purpose as they are third party sources showing lots of unrelated people holding Aoyagi out to be a high-ranking member of the clergy. The Endo Times articles (the first two Japanese newsletter sources) in particular are definitely stronger than blogs. This is a newsletter for the LDS Japanese disapora that has readers in Alaska, Texas, and Seattle (see the 21 March 2010 issue), in addition to readers in Japan, but I don't think it is quite to the GNG level because it's a newsletter, not a newspaper. Anyhow, my primary concern is consistency. I don't think any of the Second Quorum guys will meet GNG because of their work prior to the church office (though I could be wrong in the individual case), so either they are analogous to a Catholic bishop, which means we keep them all, or they are not which means we delete them all. I'm not changing my vote, but I'd be okay with either outcome, and would actually prefer deleting them all to the inconsistency we have now.

Of course my interpretation of the Catholic bishop rule may be wrong (a reasonable conclusion as my argument is just an implied extension of the people notability guidelines and not explicitly stated...but then that is the way rules work, otherwise we would never have gotten Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education). For comparason purposes, it looks like a lot of the Catholic bishop articles are pretty weak as well. Just pulling two at random, see Francis B. Schulte and Bernard William Schmitt, the only source these articles cite is http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/. This site looks to be about the equivalent of http://www.gapages.com/, which we could cite for all of the LDS guys (and many of them actually do cite there as an External Link, see Nathan Eldon Tanner), but I wouldn't consider either site to meet the GNG source requirements. Others might disagree. I've got nothing against the Catholic bishop articles and would like to keep them, but to be consistent maybe we need to get rid of the Catholic bishop rule entirely. Vojen (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Church publications, blogs, and other trifles do not establish notability for individuals in this project. The level of zeal and meticulous source-squeezing for any and all name-drops of the subject suggests a Scientology-level of inappropriate advocacy editing. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Vojen and Jgstokes and have added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are no more reliable than the (unreliable) sources that were already in the article. p b p 04:50, 3 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the absence of third-party sources or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how this article satisfies the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG. --DAJF (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Until someone can explain why this article is attacked, while the less sourced article on Francis B. Schulte remains unassailed, this comes off as a troublesome nomination with no ground to stand on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert:, if anybody's attacking anyone, it's you. You've just presented a textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: just because there's a related poorly-sourced article in no way justifies keeping this one, nor am I under any other obligation to nominate Schulte because I nominated this article. Not only is your comment a complete non-sequitur, it's disruptive. You've been told by numerous editors that it is acceptable for me to nominate these, and that you've exaggerated by claiming that my AfDs are attacks. But, if you want to continue exaggerating, go ahead and take this to ANI if you want. There won't be an iota of action taken. p b p 04:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I remember seeing several of these run across AfD (i.e., where the only notability was within the church / the sources cited where church-based / no independent notability), and a cursory search turned up:

...so this basically is starting to turn into a common outcome from what I can tell. There are exceptions, obviously (e.g., having notability for other things as well), but this article doesn't look like one of them.

--slakr^\ talk / 09:35, 20 September 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.