Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Jiménez (radio host)

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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Jiménez (radio host)

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

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

Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a radio personality, whose only claim of notability for more than just existing is that he "was one of the only morning radio shows able to compete on the airwaves with The Howard Stern Show" — but (a) he hosts a Spanish-language show, and thus wasn't in competition with Stern for a strongly overlapping audience in the first place; (b) as popular as Stern was and is, he was never so overwhelmingly dominant that other shows ever actually had to fold up their tents and go home; and (c) the claim is unsourced. I'm also batching the separate standalone article about his show, which is also poorly referenced: it cites just two sources, both of which are unreliable entertainment-PR blogs rather than reliable sources. As always, a radio program and its host can earn inclusion in Wikipedia if they can be properly sourced over WP:NMEDIA, WP:CREATIVE and/or WP:GNG, but do not get an automatic inclusion freebie on bad or no sourcing just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is unsourced and barely a two-sentence stub. However, searching finds evidence of a long career and top-rated show in NYC. Coverage includes: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]] all in English, with many more in Spanish. MB 21:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore older more detailed version at [6]. Bio is linked from El Vacilón de la Mañana. Notability should not be based on personal ethnocentric unfamiliarity. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that older version cites no referencing at all either — so it is not better or more includable than this version is. And nobody based anything here on "personal ethnocentric unfamiliarity", either — lots of things are reliably sourced enough that their notability is plainly apparent regardless of whether the reader already has "personal ethnocentric familiarity" with the topic or not, but this as written is not one of them. Notability is not a measure of what an article says, but of the depth and quality of sourcing that is or isn't present to support what it says — no Wikipedia notability criterion can ever be passed just by saying that it's passed, if the resulting article isn't sourced to any reliable sourcing that supports the truth of the claim. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage by the likes of the New York Daily News seem to indicate that he's had a notable career so far. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:48, 13 October 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.