Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Rascon

Add links
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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 01:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Rascon

[edit]
Art Rascon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks any third-party sources; fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Aoidh (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A regional Emmy award isn't the same as winning a national-level Emmy, and would be more significant if there were someone other than primary or non-third party sources making any mention of the Emmy. An Emmy is a well known award and per WP:ANYBIO it does mean they are likely to be notable, but it doesn't mean they are. The only sources that make note of this are ones that gain by promoting the individual, so there's no real evidence of notability here. - Aoidh (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the presumption is in favor of notability unless rebutted, and here there appears to be no dispute that the grammys were awarded. Sourcing could be improved and so could tone, but the awards themselves establish notability, IMHO. Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An emmy shows indication of notability, but per community consensus on the matter such an award does not establish notability. A local emmy even less so. The presumption of notability is entirely rebutted here as there is no actual sourcing of any kind to show that this emmy shows notability in this case; the only sources that mention this are sources that promote this individual like his places of employment. - Aoidh (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Almost the entire article looks to be a copyvio. The majority of the current text was added November 18, 2011 and is a copy of his bio for the 2011 San Antonio YSA conference. This year's event appears to be held in early November, and although I can't find a date for the 2011 conference, it's reasonable to think that it was also held in early November (ie before November 18, 2011). If he's notable (and I haven't looked for sources yet, so I can't speak to that), then I suggest nuking this version and starting over. Ca2james (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply if that's the case, then the proper procedure is to put up the copyvio tag so that it isn't causing problems that way and then we figure out if we have to Nuke it or if we can rewrite it. No sense wasting bandwidth on an AfD if a copyvio is in the way. What's your result with the Earwig tool? Montanabw(talk) 07:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, I'm not familiar with the earwig tool. I just copied and pasted into google and could see that the entire lede is almost identical to their about us page. I know the usual procedure is to tag it with a copyvio notice but I'm not sure what the procedure is when the article is at afd. Ca2james (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same procedure. You can also try to rewrite it which may take even less time than talking about what to do with it. In fact, PAGs recommends trying to fix issues before anything else. Atsme📞📧 23:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it isn't clear that he's notable (I know you say he is but I have disagreed with your judgement everywhere else). I wasn't going to spend time fixing it unless I was convinced he was notable. Ca2james (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, if you say that the lede is copied and pasted, the article may also qualify as a speedy delete per CSD G12. Hx7 13:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So should I nominate it for G12, then? Or tag it as copyvio? Ca2james (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if he'd won an actual Emmy. He won a regional Emmy, which is not the same thing and which does not automatically confer notability. Ca2james (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is true, and he has also won multiple local and national awards. [1] Rascon isn't some peanut gallery reporter. He's notable but his article is written poorly. It doesn't need to be deleted - it needs to be improved and there are plenty of sources out there that can be used. His son is also an anchor. I wish editors wouldn't rush to judgment on these BLPs before they've even taken the time to Google the name and see who the person is and why whoever created the stub thought that person was notable. It will spare us all a great deal of wasted time at AfDs. In fact, he's not just notable, Art Rascon is a famous new correspondent. He also shot an Emmy Award winning documentary, "The Children of the Dump" [2] Looks like we've got another snow-keep.Atsme📞📧 00:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any record of him winning an n Emmy. Did he win an Emmy, or did he win a Lone star Emmy (a regional emmy) which are quite different things? Ca2james (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I really wish that people would just !vote with their reasoning and not attack one another's positions. The closing admin is supposed to weigh the arguments, all this cruft of attacking each other distracts from the actual reasoning. Frankly, just being the lead anchor of a major metropolitian News station is, absent the awards, easily meeting WP:GNG, which is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject. That is met. Montanabw(talk) 02:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the notability guidelines that says a news anchor is automatically notable. I would love to see some significant coverage of him from independent reliable sources; what sources have you found? It's on you and other keep !voters to show that he's notable, so you can expect to be questioned if you say he's notable but don't provide support for your statement. Also, he didn't win an actual Emmy (like the ones that are internationally known and on par with the Grammy's, Oscars, and Tony's), did he? He won a regional Emmy, right? Saying that he won an Emmy without qualifying that it was of the regional variety is misleading. Winning an actual Emmy in some categories might automatically establish notability but notability is not automatic for a regional Emmy. Ca2james (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out why a rationale may or may not be in keeping with guidelines or policies is a far cry from an "attack". For example, it is not "attacking" to point out that no, being an anchor of any news station does not meet WP:GNG by any stretch of the imagination. Notability is not inherited from where you work, which seems to be the crux of your rationale for keeping the article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Montanabw and User:Atsme. In this diff, I converted a 2008 source that was in External links into inline citation format which supports 17 of the Emmy awards (and I insert "[regional]" as a qualifier in the quote I include in the footnote), all 3 of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists' awards, and 15 of the asserted 18 Associated Press reporting awards. I assume 3 of the AP awards were after 2008. It is fine to clarify in the article that the Emmy's (Emmies?) are regional (and say what region), and to otherwise qualify other awards, too. But no matter how you qualify them, they add up and are convincing to me. If it were so easy to get awards then all of us would have a lot more barnstars on our userpages, I suppose. :) --doncram 17:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I removed the "[regional]" qualification as I do not know if all 17 of the Emmies were regional. His series "The Children of the Dump" about dump-scavenging children in Nicaragua's second city, is one that won a regional Emmy. ([3]).
I also added sourced mention of his being 1 of just 5 Latino correspondents making it onto U.S. national TV evening news in 1997 (which goes to notability), and his stake presidency role in the Church of Latter Day Saints (not so much about notability, but interesting). He's been quoted about low numbers of Latinos in news organizations, particularly "behind-the-scenes" roles leading to management, as opposed to showing a Hispanic newsreader. He was speaking in role of VP, Broadcasting, in the national Hispanic journalists group, a role which could be added to the article.
I for one recognize him as a national-level news reporter and I personally think we readers should be able to find out about any such person, including about their possible biases. Knowing now that he is a Mormon and has a large family and was involved with the Rotarians in helping the dump children in Nicaragua, I will listen to him / hear him a bit differently now. --doncram 03:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with those are that the notability guidelines do not support keeping the article, winning an award of that type does not show notability, it suggests the presence of it. The lack of any third-party sources supporting the content or the emmy as notable does not muster the notability required per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Non-notability does not "add up" to create notability that would not otherwise exist. - Aoidh (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rascon is notable - he has been a high-profile news correspondent for years, not just a local guy. He was a correspondent for CBS Evening News with Dan Rather - a major network - which substantiates his notability. I was able to find one Emmy nomination for his coverage of Hurricane Fran for 48 Hours on CBS but haven't had time to follow through on it or any of the other Emmy Awards. I'm sure there are some regional Emmy's but they shouldn't be discounted when you consider how many news stations and states are included in a region. He has won multiple awards for excellence in journalism including two national Edward R. Murray Awards, three National Association of Hispanic Journalists' awards, 18 Associated Press Reporting awards. He's clearly notable. Atsme📞📧 20:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established by reliable sources, not by who he worked with. Those awards also do not establish notability. "Clearly notable" would be shown through third-party sources showing notability, or by meeting one of the notability criteria. The keep rationales all seem to boil down to "he's interesting / won some local awards that only his employers seem to note / worked with important people therefore he is notable". However, that has never been how notability works. - Aoidh (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More than enough sources have already been provided to establish his notability. Once this AfD closes, I imagine more editors will be inspired to clean-up the mess. Poor writing does NOT warrant an AfD under the fallacious premise that it fails WP:N. Atsme📞📧 18:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested poor writing was an issue, it's the sourcing and notability. There are plenty of non-third party sources in the article, but nothing showing notability; sourcing is not solved by quantity. - Aoidh (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. We've done that. There is also WP:BIO which states: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. We've done that. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. We've done that -what more do you want? Atsme📞📧 20:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I did find some sources about Rascon. However, I'm not sure whether these sources actually qualify as independent reliable sources and can be used to establish notability (clarified Ca2james (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)), so I was wondering if others could weigh in on them. I'll make a !vote once the suitability of these sources is determined. The sources are:[reply]
.A feature he received in a BYU magazine. Is this independent, given that BYU is his alma mater?
.The transcript of the introduction to a speech he made at BYU. Is this independent (as above) and is it a RS, given that it's the transcript of the introduction to a speech?
.An article about Rascon in Deseret News. Is this independent, given that it's Deseret News and he's Mormon and it contains many quotes from him?
Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IS is a good essay about independent sources. It states: Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources. We have cited RS to establish his notability per WP:Notability_(people) which comply with WP:ANYBIO, and WP:JOURNALIST. I have properly added a section for the two books he has authored, and tweaked the lead and various sections to help the prose flow, and I also added a few more RS. Atsme📞📧 15:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I asked whether these sources met reliability and independence criteria to establish notability, but I don't see that question addressed? I know they would be perfectly acceptable as RS in the article, but what I don't know is whether they meet RS criteria to establish notability. Ca2james (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read your original question again. It doesn't say anything about the sources you provided establishing notability. You said "I'm not sure whether these sources actually qualify as independent reliable sources" and I provided an answer. You said nothing about them being used to establish notability. However, as I already explained, we've already provided sources that establish notability - Doncram and I both have expanded this BLP and established notability - so I don't quite understand why you're confused. Atsme📞📧 02:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by the argument that you've provided. I am trying to figure out if these are independent reliable sources that could be used to establish notability, although I clearly missed that clause above (I've clarified it now); if they are, I'd say he's notable, but if they aren't, I'd say he's not. And you didn't examine the sources at all. Could you do that? Ca2james (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have examined the sources. RS/N or BLP/N would be the proper forums if you want more input. We've already tried to explain to you the sources cited in the article already establish his notability, but you don't WP:LISTEN as proven by your comment that you're not convinced by the argument I've provided.Atsme📞📧 06:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Atsme is not being fair. User:Ca2james invested effort into coming up with those 3 interesting sources, and their question is fair. About the 3 sources, what I think is:
  • The third one, the article in Deseret News, is a reliable source and goes towards notability. The Deseret News is a respected newspaper that is associated with the Mormon church. Rascon being a Mormon does not diminish the fact that the Deseret News is independent from him. It seems to me that the quotes from Rascon, like the quotes from others, are in fact quotes taken from Rascon's writings (in his case, from his 1998 book). The article is well-written IMHO in how it weaves together quotes of what various persons said at different times on the same general topic, in an engaging way, and I believe without distorting anything. Rascon is quoted as an important authority.
  • The second one, which consists of an introduction then Rascon's speech, is primary. It is very interesting, what he describes about being at a fork in the road and then at a roadblock in Iraq during wartime, etc., but it is Rascon's words about Rascon's life.
  • The first one, the feature article about him in the BYU magazine, is inbetween, because it is an interview but in a publication independent of Rascon. It is mostly an interview of Rascon, and I think we can believe that the interviewer got it right in what Rascon said, but the interviewer is not responsible for the accuracy of what Rascon says. The BYU magazine might be expected to be biased along the lines of accepting noncritically what Rascon, an alumnus(?), says, but it counts somewhat towards notability in that the magazine independently chose to feature him. I think most generally reliable newspapers and magazines report interviews that way, and if anyone was the subject of feature articles in Rolling Stone and People and the Houston newspaper (not saying Rascon was) then those feature articles add up to say this is an important person. I am not sure but perhaps some higher level reliable sources such as the New York Times might have higher standards about interviews, i.e. that they would perform fact-checking and question/criticize the interview subject if the subject's assertions were not supported.
I already !voted Keep on basis of other material, and seeing these three sources makes me feel even more confident that Rascon is wikipedia-notable. And, all three provide material which can be used to develop an interesting article, including perhaps quoting or summarizing from Rascon's wartime anecdotes. --doncram 18:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, doncram; that was kind of what I thought. Atsme, there is no consensus here so accusing me of disruptive editing by failing to listen to consensus is inappropriate. The fact that I am unconvinced by your arguments shows that I have read, understood, and considered them, and that I disagree with them. Stating that I disagree with your arguments is not disruptive. As for taking my question to a noticeboard, I thought the participants here might be interested and able to provide some guidance. There's no rule that says I have to go to a noticeboard first, after all. Ca2james (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, now I'm confused. While I appreciate all efforts by editors who are trying to find reliable sources to expand this BLP, I don't think it's fair that Ca2james has completely dismissed all of the sources others have already gone to the trouble of citing to establish notability for a clearly notable BLP. If an editor is unable to determine whether or not a source meets the criteria for notability how is it they are able to tell another editor that their argument is not convincing regarding that very subject? If Ca2james is unwilling to make an effort to get fresh eyes on the questioned sources at specialized noticeboards, how does that make me "unfair"? I'm also not sure if it was or will be noticed that Ca2james changed their original question regarding their newly found sources after I responded to it. I actually did AGF as I always do, and made a sincere effort to properly answer the original question which turned out to be a time sink. And then, despite my good faith efforts to continue helping, Ca2james has the audacity to accuse me of not examining the sources at all, which in retrospect is not unusual behavior for this editor based on my past history with them at prior AfDs. I've been more than fair and patient. Furthermore, the part of the guideline I considered relative to Ca2james in this AfD was actually the part of the guideline that states: Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. It certainly fits this scenario. Atsme📞📧 22:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "dismissed all the sources" - not that there have been many provided - I have examined the arguments and found them unconvincing because all of his emmy's and other awards are local to Texas or Houston and they have not received significant coverage from independent sources. How is my saying that disruptive? Until this is closed, there is no consensus one way or another for me to disrupt, and disagreeing is allowed here. I changed my original question after you made it clear that I hadn't asked the question thought I had, which is much less devious than you paint it to be. And if you looked at the sources, you didn't say anything about them. Ca2james (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuses are like...well, nevermind. I really don't have time to argue with you or subject myself to further unwarranted allegations. I'm in the middle of reviewing a GA, I've got articles stacking up that need to be expanded, and it's just not like me to waste time on lost causes. I've done all I can do here. Ba-bye! Atsme📞📧 00:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Rascon has won a number of regional Emmy awards, first from the Suncoast chapter, and then from the Lonestar chapter after it was formed in 2002 (its first awards for 2002 were given out in 2003). He won in 2003200420062008. However, the only coverage that I can find for any of these awards given out to anyone is from whichever news station was nominated or won, and even then only the awards associated with that station are listed. In other words, there are no independent sources commenting on any of the Lone star Emmy wins. So even if I could find any sources that covered his wins (and I can't, but I assume that's because they were some time ago and only print sources are available), those sources aren't independent of him.
The regional Emmy he won for "the children of the dump" was reported in Rotary magazines, but as he went with them both times he went and they were involved in getting him to the dump, that coverage isn't independent, either. None of the other emmy's (and all of them are regional, as he's not listed as a national award winner in search) have received independent coverage.
He says he's won two Edward R. Murrow awards and separate RTDNA awards; RTDNA (formerly RTNDA) is one type of Murrow award, and there are also regional RTDNA awards. Winning an individual Murrow award would establish notabikity but those are lifetime achievement awards and he hasn't won one of those. The other awards name the station(s) or programs(s) as winners; specific personnel associated with the production are not named. See this page for the most recent national winners, and our own article for more information. Since he's not specifically named as a recipient of these awards they don't establish his notability.
He says he's won associated press awards, but most of their awards go to sports people, and they have at least one named award (the Oliver S. Gramling awards) - if he'd won a named award I'd expect him to list the name because those awards are a big deal,and reported on by third-party media. It appears that most of the associated press awards are given out at the state level, such as from the Texas Associated Press Managing Editors. He probably won the awards with the Texas Associated Press Broadcasters Association but they don't appear to keep archives.
He did win a lifetime achievement award from the Houston Association of Hispanic Media Professionals, but it was only reported by his station, which is not independent and does not establish notability.
I would like to add that these awards are all being listed in sources written by or quoting Rascon as if they were national awards but they're mostly regional, which is misleading. It's also misleading for the article or any of his bios to say he won some of these awards when it is clear that he, himself, did not win those awards.
Obviously having worked with someone notable does not mean he is notable, as notability is not INHERITED. The article says that he was "recognized in 1997 as being one of only five Latino correspondents appearing on national television networks in the US reporting major events for the evening news." which misstates the source a bit; it says "only five Latino correspondents made it into the evening news in 1997 (Jim Avila of NBC, Art Rascon and Vince Gonzalez of CBS, Antonio Mora and John Quinones of ABC)." This passing mention doesn't establish notability, either.
To sum up: it's clear that while he is known locally, he isn't known nationally (let alone internationally), and so isn't more than, at best, locally notable. It's also clear that while he's and/or his station and/or programs he worked on won a bunch of (mostly) regional awards, none have received independent news coverage and so he's not notable on the front either. Since of the sources I found above, only one looks independent and significant, he doesn't meet GNG with those either. Essentially, there's a whole lot of either non-independent sources or passing mentions. I call it a weak delete because he's thisclose to being notable, and because he has won awards and contributed to many others. Ca2james (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Ca2james appears to be confused over GNG, and the fact that major news networks - ABC & CBS - each of whom are RS and both of whom have verified the awards Rascon has won which complies with both WP:N and WP:V. Now Ca2james is reverting reliably sourced information from the article and has become disruptive. Will an admin please weigh in here? I've asked for input at BLPN. Atsme📞📧 04:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have admitted that my edit summaries were unjustified. I've also discussed the removals there and on the Talk page. Two of the removals did remove OR (and I've offered to undo and redo the removals with appropriate edit summaries) and I've said that if Atsme wants to restore the other one to go ahead. I'm getting the sense that Atsme thinks that if I disagree with her or make an edit with which she disagrees, I'm automatically being disruptive, and this is starting to have a chilling effect on my participation. It's very uncomfortable. Ca2james (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have never used WP:OR, and ask that you please read the policy so you'll understand why your allegation is unsupported. I find it rather disconcerting (chilling) that you would (1) accuse me of such a policy violation - one of our 3 core content policies - and (2) are now trying to make me look like a bully when you've been the one making unsupported allegations. and making fallacious argumentsStrike redundancy 20:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC) I've tried to explain to you on more than one occasion about citing sources for GNG vs citing sources for including material, and certainly hope you understand it now that I've sought other opinions at BLPN. You may not realize it, but as I explained to you above, what you're doing is disruptive per WP:IDHT. Also, please read WP:STATUSQUO, and WP:RS which will help you understand why your arguments are not supported. I'm pleased to see that you admitted to making unjustified edit summaries but it was the reverts that were unjustified. You also need to reconsider your position regarding OR or seek a third opinion if you don't have faith in what I've explained or have trouble understanding the policy. You should actually seek guidance at WP:RSN for any sources you find questionable which I suggested above and was accused of being unfair. Atsme📞📧 18:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said on the article Talk page, I'm not accusing anyone of anything or making allegations against anyone. Stating that something isn't supported by any sources isn't a false or unsupported allegation or a reliable source problem, and it's most definitely not a statement against an editor. I've been saying and doing things that I think are reasonable and I'm getting a metric ton of grief over it from you. If you think I'm behaving badly, take me to ani. Ca2james (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're responsible enough that I don't have to take such action. Just to clarify regarding your insistence that the sources didn't support the material - I explained it to you at BLPN and at the Rascon TP - it appears we have too many discussions going on about this one BLP. As for a metric ton of grief try thinking about what your actions have caused others. I spent my valuable time researching those RS, then wrote the passages, cited them to the RS, and the next thing I know, my work was wrongfully deleted - all with a single key stroke from your keyboard. Now that you realize your mistakes, and have modified your behavior, I'm happy to leave things as they are and hope an admin will please close this AfD so others will acquire some incentive to keep expanding the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)
With respect, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia means that one's hard work might be deleted with a single keystroke. Indeed, each of us can expect that our contributions will be modified up to and including deletion because we do not OWN any page here. Of course anyone might disagree with their contributions being deleted and might feel that the deletion was unwarranted - whether it was warranted or not. Usually an editor in that position would AGF and contact the other editor to ask what's going on. Typically, such a situation doesn't result in replacing that AGF contact with allegations of disruptive behaviour, posting in multiple places about the situation (resulting in discussions occurring in multiple places), and calling for an admin investigation - but that's how this went down. All of that would be the metric ton of grief and the chilling effects I was referring to above. Ca2james (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies some of the problem - collaboration means just that - you discuss edits and work with fellow editors. You don't just go in and revert their edits when a discussion is underway, especially when you don't fully understand applicable PAGs. You discuss things on the TP first, unless of course you're faced with a situation that calls for a speedy removal, such as vandalism. We are here to discuss notability which doesn't stop an editor from working to improve an article, although an AfD hovering in the background is an incentive killer not to mention a time sink. Regardless, before you revert a questionable edit, you should AGF and discuss the edit collaboratively with the other editors first. Please read the following essay: Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. Also read WP:3RR. Atsme📞📧 04:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm not an idiot, contrary to what you seem you think, and I quite frankly I'm tired of you telling me what I "need" to do. Please stop doing that. Now: I'm *allowed* to make changes without asking your permission. I'm *allowed* to make changes - even to the words you slaved over, and to articles you created, and even to Good Articles - without even telling you about those changes in advance. That's how BRD works: edits do not have to be discussed in advance. Those three edits I made - and to be clear, I wasn't removing award names but the national/regional/local modifiers; and from a distance this is an absolutely ridiculous amount of drama over, what, five words? - weren't, or shouldn't have been, controversial, and there's absolutely no reason to have had to discuss them with you first. Ca2james (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with your allegations. If you don't have anything productive to say about this AfD or the article, then please don't say anything at all, particularly to me. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as there's nothing apart from the ordinary to suggest there's convincingly better, these journalists commonly get local Emmys, but that's still not convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the article - he has earned several01:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC) national awards for his work as journalist/reporter/news correspondent for national television and radio: The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Radio, and 48 Hours.Atsme📞📧 19:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "JAKLEWED. Oklahoma City station looks at Steve LaNore Jeanne - Jakle". San Antonio Express-News. 1992-09-02. Archived from the original on 2016-08-01. Retrieved 2016-08-01.

      The article notes:

      Meanwhile, 29-year-old KMOL alumnus Art Rascon has at least one eye on Gerry Grant's co-anchor seat next to Debora Daniels.

      Rascon currently is a news reporter at KABC-TV in the No. 2 market of Los Angeles. Though he has a year and a half left on his KABC contract, Art's growing itchy for an anchor post, something the L.A. station has yet to deliver. And he's heard through channels that KMOL News Director Ron Harig is "very interested in speaking to me." He even mentioned his willingness to walk away from his KABC contract if a new opportunity were good enough.

      Rascon says he made no formal contact with KMOL management during his four-day visit to San Antonio last week, but a brief appearance at the station was enough to get tongues wagging.

      He and wife Patti mainly came to check up on their old S.A. home, which they still own but rent out. He also mentioned taking a look at some new properties . . . in case "we were to resettle" here.

    2. Toone, Trent (2012-06-14). "Positive power: Despite levels of mistrust, media can be a force for good". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2016-08-01. Retrieved 2016-08-01.

      The article notes:

      In 1996, Art Rascon had a life-changing interview with an apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

      Rascon, a broadcast journalist who is LDS, was working on a piece for CBS News about the growing phenomenon of religion on the Internet and how religious organizations were using cyberspace to spread their message. After talking with various Christian groups, he was granted an interview with Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve, now a member of the First Presidency of the LDS Church. Rascon recounted their conversation in his 1998 book, "On Assignment: The Stories Behind the Stories."

      During their visit, President Eyring repeated many things Rascon had already heard about the negative influence of the media.

    3. "Baytown salutes veterans". Baytown Sun. 2014-11-12. Archived from the original on 2016-08-01. Retrieved 2016-08-01.

      The article notes:

      Art Rascon made one thing clear when he took the podium as guest speaker at the Veterans Day Ceremony: he was not a veteran.

      Still, Rascon, a news anchor from Houston’s Channel 13, captured the audience with a story of passion, personal experience and a humble thanks to veterans who serve in the armed forces.

      All sat inside of the Baytown Community Center after rainy weather moved the event from its initial site at the Veterans Memorial Plaza in Bicentennial Park. Working with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the City of Baytown hosts the annual ceremony to show gratitude.

      The seasoned reporter has won 19 Emmy Awards for stories captured during military conflicts and unrest that required U.S. intervention. Locations included Grenada, the Balkans, Central America, the Middle East, the Persian Crisis and Gulf War.

    4. Weaver, Sarah Jane (2000-06-17). "LDS reporter finds faith amid despair". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2016-08-01. Retrieved 2016-08-01.

      The article notes:

      Standing in a tent in the middle of a Kosovar refugee camp along the Kosovo/Macedonia border, Art Rascon looked over a sea of thousands of people forced from their homeland.

      As a reporter for KTRK-TV in Houston, Brother Rascon spoke with a family who, because of the civil war raging in Kosovo, no longer owned anything "except the clothes on their backs." Their daughter, pleased that someone cared about the family's plight, got on her hands and knees and began searching for something in the make-shift shelter. She then offered Brother Rascon a bottle of water.

      ...

      Raised in Denver, Colo., Brother Rascon attended Ricks College and served a mission in the California Arcadia Mission prior to graduating from BYU in 1984 with a bachelor's degree in broadcast journalism. Before moving almost two years ago to Houston where he now works as an anchor/reporter, Brother Rascon worked as a Miami-based correspondent for the "CBS Evening News with Dan Rather." He left this job hoping to spend more time with his wife, Patti, and their six children.

      During his career he has also worked as a reporter in Los Angeles and at several stations in Texas. He has been nominated for 11 Emmy awards and won three -- two for his March 1999 coverage of the Kosovo War.

    5. "JAKLETHURS. Killeen tragedy leads newscasts Jeanne Jakle". San Antonio Express-News. 1991-10-07. Archived from the original on 2016-08-01. Retrieved 2016-08-01.

      The article notes:

      Remember KMOL-TV weekend anchor Art Rascon, who left San Antonio two years ago for a six-figure reporter/anchor deal at KABC-TV in Los Angeles?

      He and his wife, Patty, have a hankering to live in San Antonio again. And when Rascon got wind of anchorman/reporter Hollis Grizzard's sudden resignation at KSAT, his antennae started flickering.

      Though he said he hasn't spoken with KSAT's news boss, Jim Boyle, Rascon says others at the station have phoned suggesting he look into it.

      Though Rascon says he now makes twice what that post paid Hollis which is estimated to be around $60,000 a year he said he's willing to take a pay cut in San Antonio because the cost of living here is much lower than Los Angeles'.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Art Rascon to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_Rascon&oldid=1171393578"