Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Laquidara

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. Flowerparty^☀ 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Laquidara[edit]

fails to establish how this radio personality is notable. No mention of awards, industry contributions, or syndication that would indicate that he is notable outside of the local market. Zero verifiable 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: And zero attempt to find any, it seems. "Charles Laquidara" returns 358 hits on Google News [1]. Heck, his on-air ID back in the late 1970s and early 1980s gets 5 G-news cites [2]. Ravenswing 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIO says nothing about Google News hits establishing notability, citations demonstrating wide coverage from 3rd party sources does. Are none of these Globe articles worth citing? The article still has no references. Most of these Google News hits are from the Boston Globe. Is this person notable outside of Boston? WP:BIO calls for widely recognition for contribution to a person's industry and/or awards or some other honor to demonstrate notability. He's been covered frequently in the Globe but so have most other local DJs. --Rtphokie (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yes, the Globe certainly accounted for many of those hits, but I'm missing the point; as one of the most respected and prominent newspapers in the country, it definitely counts as a reliable source. That being said, the fundamental criterion of WP:BIO (quite often ignored in the rush to establish the "Additional criteria" as the be-all and end-all) is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Deletion policy holds very strongly that attempts to improve the article should be taken before filing AfD, which flies in the face of the inference that G-News hits are worthless because they haven't been cited in the article yet. So what stopped you? Ravenswing 13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as article now has many references from such reliable secondary sources as TIME, Newsweek, The New York Times, and The Boston Globe as well as less famous sources. 30 year career as a top-rated host in a major American city plus significant national attention means this subject easily vaults the verifiability and notability hurdles. Indeed, the article needs expansion to cover his impact on the anti-Apartheid movement in more detail. - Dravecky (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2008 (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.