Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Diaz

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. —Xyrael / 10:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Diaz

Delete. Vanity article apparently written by subject. Journalist who is no more significant than others in his field. The page could have been created as some kind of advertisement; in any case, it fails to meet the acceptance guidelines in WP:Vanity. Tschel 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you remove the last two paragraphs, the article will still be relevant and not advertising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.14 (talk • contribs).

True, but keep in mind that the article was written by himself. Furthermore, Google turns up virtually no results on this guy except for an occasional web page written by himself. Because of this, it is nearly impossible for any other Wikipedians to contribute to the article, and there is no way of confirming the objectivity of most of the information there. Therefore, this would be considered a vanity article according to Wikipedia guidelines. Tschel 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep. It may be vanity, but as WP:VAIN states, "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is." If he's a staff writer for a major newspaper and had a role on a national reality show, I'd be inclined to say he meets notability thresholds. That being said, this barely qualifies as a stub. Also, both claims are unverified. If the guy really is a journalist, I'd expect him to come up with something more substantial than this. Pleather 00:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

True but if you google Johnny Diaz and Boston, you can verify that he is a reporter and see some of his articles. All his information is verifiable.

Well, in its new state (3 short sentences), all the information certainly is verifiable. However, the article now makes no assertion of notability. Yes, he may have played a token role in a national reality show, but thousands of the rank-and-file can make that claim. I really don't see any reason to keep this article. Before it was pared down, it made all kinds of wild, unverifiable claims, and now, in its "just the facts" form, it lacks any kind of significance.

It's not hard to figure out why the article is here in the first place. This fellow is writing about himself! But is his autobiography significant and neutral enough to justify an encyclopedia article? Maybe not. --Tschel 21:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A search of his name shows that he was part of a reporting team at the south Florida Miami Herald newspaper where he shared a Pulitzer Prize when that news organisation won the prize for the coverage of Elian Gonzalez, the little Cuban boy who washed up ashore in Miami and who was seized by the federal government via Janet Rio in 2000. Between the MTV show, the Thomas Roberts news item and the Pulitzer prize, perhaps Mr. Diaz should remain as a wikipedia article.

• Delete - as it stands, this article does not come anywhere close to the criteria of WP:BIO. Being a newspaper writer does not cut it; working at the Herald when the organisation won the award does not pass; and being related/married/dating someone who is notable does not make him notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gay Cdn (lazy opinion on my part, but when you can't put it better yourself, no use trying). --Satori Son 03:24, 23 September 2006 (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.