Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Garcia (Radio Host)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Bobet 10:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Garcia (Radio Host)

Host of local radio show Race to the Right (also on AfD). Article was tagged for speedy deletion a few days ago, but the creator tagged it "hangon" and added a new intro that he felt addressed notability. It is a rather long article and partially sourced, but much of the article is unsourced and fails verifiability. Furthermore, I don't see anything in the article that meets WP:BIO inclusion criteria, so my opinion is Delete.--Isotope23 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I have been using Wikipedia for many many things for several years. When I have a question about ANYTHING I check Wikipedia first. While the policy of "notability" and "verifiable" are very good standards there seems to me a conflict with that in some of the projects I have seen on Wikipedia (e.g. requesting pages for all state legislators, articles completing timelines). These projects imply a desire of comprehensiveness to some degree. Those things said, these articles seem to fall into line with the comprehensive drive of other projects. Verifiability? Yes, difficult. So, to me, it seems the question here calls for a balance between Verfiability and/or Notability vs Comprehensive and leading resource. And one more point to the idea of Comprehensive Resource: many other Wikias also imply a similar drive...things like Lyrics library, etc.tony garcia 00:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this reasoning is a cut and paste from your comments at the Race to the Right AfD. verifiability is an official policy here and is non-negotiable. There is no balancing Verfiability/Notability/Comprehensive... if something is not verifiable or sourced it does not belong on Wikipedia, particularly in the case of biographic articles (you can read WP:LIVING for the policy on this). On another note, please read the guideline criteria for inclusion of a biographical article (which can be viewed at WP:BIO). The problem I see here is that the subject of this article doesn't meet any of the criteria at said guideline.--Isotope23 13:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "non-negotialbe"? I will have to go through the pages such as the "United States network television schedule" and change my votes to delete...and perhaps submit those not already submitted. Since verifiability is non-negotiable and thus not balanced with comprehensiveness.tony garcia 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have read the WP:BIO often. And please consider the following quotes from that page.

    This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)...This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.(empahsis in original)

    Quite honestly from my hours and hours of reading all of the policies and guidelines and discussions on other articles I have realized that the areas being argued for deletion are grey areas. Misinterpretations of intentions (like with Charlene below) and reading 'guidelines' as concrete policies seem to drive most of the discussions throughout. This whole process has been very enlightening (both positively and negatively). In the end I beleive the only real question is about Verifiability. The other justifications for deletion seem to be poorly relying upon selective interpretation. On a different note...I want to thank Isotope and XP for being less hostile and more helpful than most every other discussion I have read or participated in.--tony garcia 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, thanks and please know that it is nothing personal against you, your show, or Pete. The whole point of this process is to discuss the merits of an article and different people are going to have different viewpoints. I personally apply the WP:BIO guidelines pretty strictly (unless I see a compelling reason to ignore them), but not everyone necessarily does so. I hope regardless of what happens with these articles it doesn't sour you on involvement or use of the project.--Isotope23 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:V. Wikipedia is not an advertising service.--Charlene.fic 12:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I take offense to the insinuation that I am advertising anything. 1) I gain nothing by trying to add all of the live talent from the station into Wikipedia. 2) I believe I have upfront about my relation to the page and my reasonings have nothing to do with self-promotion. My intentions were simple (and have been discussed at various other discussions). I found a philosophy of comprehensiveness within Wikipedia (which is the reason I use Wikipedia) and began adding the stations of Leighton Broadcasting and its local talent into Wikipedia. That is it. Not for advertising, not for anything else. When I use Wikipedia to find things as menial as television schedules from the 80's (which helped me in an interview, btw, a few months ago) I thought I would contribute by completing what I know about St Cloud's radio scene. I would suggest you go and read more of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies about making the charge of "vanity"...as it absolutely does not describe my purposes.tony garcia 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Vegas...I am wondering where the assertion that the article about a PLACE of interest is.
  • Delete per nom, yet another vanity page that almost meets {{db-spam}}. Sandstein 20:45, 23 October 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.