Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo A. Soriano

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

The result was keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leo A. Soriano

This gentleman does not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines. Salad Days 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly violates WP:BIO. Icemuon 01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references. Bishops are usually notable. --Eastmain 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Bishop are normally notable, but I am not sure of this one. There should be more to say, considering he is also an MD--degrees, schools, etc. I deprodded because the reason given on the prod was a religious slur, though undoubtedly intended as a joke.DGG 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO requires: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person The current references do not appear to have him as their primary subject. Also they are internal denominational publications. One would hope that, if he is notable, the regular press would have covered him. EdJohnston 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a reelected bishop of a major international church denomination, holds a four year senior position on one of the governing organisations (GCFA) within the United Methodist Church, and as a spokesperson for the orginisation has been named in many PR from the church[1]. Also bear in mind that reports of his local exploits are not likely to appear in Google due to language differences. John Vandenberg 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Vandenberg. Westenra 06:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable --Abu-Bakr69 11:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Vandenberg, seems notable enough. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's a high-ranking bishop in a major denomination.-- danntm ^T _C 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use some reformating cleanup, but the guy is notable. TonyTheTiger 22:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Contrary to the statements above unless Google returns hits regardless of language published language (unless you filter) for instance Romano Prodi Ghits (Results 1 - 10 of about 1,880,000 for "Romano Prodi") while Leo a Soriano Ghits (Results 1 - 10 of about 55 for "Leo A. Soriano") He does not pass WP:BIO in any language. While ghits in themselves do not indicative of notability it is an indicator, and other then primary source references and mirrors of Wikipedia no indicators of notability have been provided. Jeepday

Google is not god!! Those smart buggers can not index pages that do no exist, and have difficulty mapping PageRank to languages they do not understand (e.g. Google is known to not perform well in Russian and Chinese languages; local search companies still have the edge on them). Your Italian fellow is lucky that he lives in a country that speaks a language that is understood by Google (refer to Google Translate and SYSTRAN); Filipino and Tagalog are not (yet)[2]. Philippines is a developing country, so much of its news isnt available online, and Google doesnt index offline material (well except for books and journals). Assuming that Google indexes every page is silly; once you accept that, it follows that pages with less utility are not indexed. John Vandenberg 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. Change vote, per discussion below from John Vanderberg. - grubber 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I've amended the article to include a number of new factoids with sources. Leo Soriano is one of three UMC bishops that represent the Philippines, and for a while he was one of only two elected; the third position was vacant. We are talking about the 12th largest country here (by population), and he is one of three people who represents a major church for that population. John Vandenberg 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here... The article talks about what position he has, but not really about anything he has done. You seem to know more about this than I, so I'll ask ya: Do you believe his actions and post make him a notable person? - grubber 06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have voted keep becausse I believe he is worthy of note, and if he doesnt meet WP:BIO, we should be looking at why; I suggest that the reason is due to locality, and the fact the modern press (online news and blogs) dont care about people of this ilk. To make sure there is no doubt, I have no association with this man, the UMC, any other religious body or the Philippines. I am merely concerned that a major Bishop of a notable Church is being considered for deletion when a stub for a Bishop of Chicago would not be. In my opinion, the post and the mans actions should be considered synonymous (unless their term is cut short due to controversy); he is elected to those positions by his peers and parishioners, because of his actions. The problem in this case appears to be that the actions that put him there dont appear to be readily accessible outside of the UMC publications (some of them are not directly affiliated). So do we assume that he did nothing?? Or do we WP:IAR and leave it to be expanded over time. His Resident Bishophood puts him as one of three most senior in his Church in his country and his other positions appear to put him amounst the upper management of the international UMC. I cant see how Wikipedia benefits by having this article removed. John Vandenberg 06:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's easier to justify he would qualify as notable on the Filipino or Tagalog wikipedias. You could argue that since English is an official language of the Philippines that he could be notable here as well. I changed my vote to err on the side of caution. Something of a tossup in my mind. - grubber 06:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, on that, I can see http://tl.wikipedia.org is Tagalog, but Filipino language doesnt have one. Hmm, it was approved by ISO in 2004, after http://tl.wikipedia.org which appears to have been around since late 2003 Archived January 31, 2004, at the Wayback Machine. John Vandenberg 07:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see the notablility. Can this be explained? Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the bishop looks notable to me too yuckfoo 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bishops are notable per definition. --Soman 10:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources Explanation

An article with only primary source references does not imply any intentional desire to create an un-encyclopedic entry or that the sources are inaccurate. It does say the encyclopedic content of the article would be greatly improved by the addition of reference.

The three core content policies of Wikipedia are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, In general primary sources are created at or near the time being studied, often by the people being studied, and so provide a good foundation for beginning to building an article. But primary sources are by definition often orginal research and due to conflict of interest concerns may not be written from a neutral point of view.

The addition of Secondary sources which are usually based on primary sources and other secondary sources by a third party who is not connected to the source, provides for a more neutral point of view and being based on the combined research of others would not be orginal research. Here you see that the addition of secondary sources assists the editor to write (and readers to verify) an article that meets all three core content policies of Wikipedia.

Additionally, an article must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for it to remain on Wikipedia. One of the Rationale for requiring a level of notability is that a in order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources. Everyday Multiple articles are proposed and considered for deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy an article that is not clearly notable is not likely to survive the deletion process. Keeping in mind that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Jeepday 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ignore your {{primarysources}} tag, but you have baited me, so I contest it. John Vandenberg 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider Newscope[3] to be a primary, secondary or third-party source? [4]
Do you consider UMC "United Methodist News Service" to be a primary, secondary, or third party source? [5]
Do you consider "Asedillo is a freelance writer and United Methodist deaconess who resides in Baltimore" to be a primary, secondary, or third party source? [6]

In my opinion; anything related to "Microsoft" that is published by "Microsoft" is a primary source document, even if it is not directly published by Microsoft but there is a connection it raises issues Microsoft Offers Cash for Wikipedia Edit — 'Microsoft landed in the Wikipedia doghouse after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles.' the same would apply to "United Methodist" Jeepday 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Newscope is not published by UMC, and UMC does not have the reputation for shilling. Please check each of those sources and assess whether they are a primary source or not. Also, in light of the other references that are now on the article, is {{primarysources}} still necessary? John Vandenberg 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and Paste from http://www.umph.org/resources/publications/newscope/newscope_default.html Welcome to Newscope! - This is a concise, late-deadline weekly update on news of interest to United Methodist leaders. We provide up-to-the-minute reports on United Methodist Church news and other happenings of interest to United Methodists. Published by The United Methodist Publishing House, our four-page print publication is available by first-class mail ($28.00/year), periodical-class mail ($22.00/year) or, for fastest delivery, e-mail ($16/year). Jeepday 23:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you believe that The United Methodist Publishing House is the same as the organisation the runs the Uniting Methodist Church ? Could you elaborate. I'll happily eat my hat you you can prove that they are the same body, or have strong ties. Otherwise, the common element in the name would also mean that The New York Times would also need to be considered a primary source for any matter relating to New York. John Vandenberg 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While non-christians might not get it, bishops are usually notable as politicians are. The article itself has numerous assertions of notability, so that is not really the issue. As for verifiability, well the internet is western-centric when it comes to news, so just because he doesn't have that many "Google hits" mean he isn't in the news. What needs to be done is to find more appropriate references using local newspapers/tv news/etc. Shrumster 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue for me is that there's not much about what he's actually done, rather just what positions he's held. If the article talked about how he was instrumental in doing such and such or founded the thingy, then I dont think there would be much of an issue. As it is, it's a somewhat passive article. - grubber 14:41, 6 February 2007 (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.