Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julio E. Dávila

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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julio E. Dávila

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searching, this is a non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Of the seven references in the article, five are primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability. The external link is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards.

The remaining two sources in the references section, both from one almanac, are quite likely directory-like listings that provide fleeting, passing mentions about the subject. This has been determined as quite likely by researching Deseret Morning News Church Almanac coverage about the subject, for which I found the following source:

Deseret Morning News 2006 Church Almanac. 2005. p. 88.:

Julio Enrique Davila — Born May 23, 1932, in Bucaramunga, Colombia, to Julio E. Davila Villamicar and Rita Penalosa de Davila. Sustained to the Second Quorum of the Seventy April 6, 1991, at age 58; released Oct. 5, 1996. 50.

This is a directory listing that certainly does not qualify as significant coverage, and it is unlikely that the 2008 version of the almanac cited in the article provides much more. From searches, additional sources are only providing name checks, and almost nothing else. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE either, only passing mentions, directory entries and so-forth. FOARP (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The so called "directory listing" is the same level of even more than many of the actual sourcing we have for Catholic bishops that people are just fine with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It is virtually certain that the Deseret Morning News 2008 Church Almanac source in the article does not provide significant coverage. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is required to qualify notability for this subject. Furthermore, multiple sources that provide signficant coverage are required, not just one source, and this source apparently does not even provide that. The 2005 almanac entry I posted above could literally be used as a definitional example of a directory listing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Micky (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:33, 27 June 2020 (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.