Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Santiago (3rd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Santiago[edit]

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

Originally nominated for deletion in 2009, no consensus. Article issues identified in the AfD, which are as massive as the article, have not been corrected, and the article simply fails WP:NOTE. Article is hagiography, and subject has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability is pegged to Wikipedia activity of subject (see text just removed[1], sourced to the Wikipedia Signpost). This just doesn't make the cut. Article relies far too heavily on original research and primary sources, and two sources used to establish notability, El Boricua and Somos Primos, employ Santiago. Their articles are promotional and not independent of the subject. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the second, not third AfD. First AfD was for a wrestler by the same name. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hopefully all commenters will stay focused on substantive arguments and discussions of policy and leave ad hominem, tempers, and accusations of bad faith out. Thx in advance, Agricola44 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support deletion. Meets standards for WP:V but not for WP:N and nowhere close for WP:BOLP, even after a year and a half of opportunity for improvements. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 03:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose deletion. Tony Santiago is the person who has most demonstrated the influence of this medium, Wikipedia, as a source of credible information in Puerto Rico. His notability is well-established by the recognitions he has received from prominent Puerto Rican leaders and institutions. In 2007, a delegation of state senators held an event in Phoenix, the city where he lives, to recognize his work. In 2008, he shared the limelight with former President Clinton and then-senator Clinton, when the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly dedicated its Memorial Day activity in recognition of having become Puerto Rico's most widely read military historian. Puerto Rico's Governor, Luis Fortuño, and Lt. Governor, Kenneth McClintock have spoken publicly about Tony Santiago's notability, which should not be questioned. I have provided some edits to this article over time and am not conflicted in doing so, as I am not related to Tony, but have come to admire his work in broadcasting facts about Puerto Rico's military history that was little known in Puerto Rico.Some of the work that he has done allowing families of heroic soldiers to meet the beneficiaries of such heroism are documented in easily verifiable reliable third-party sources. While the article, as many, could be edited and perhaps, shortened somewhat, it has a place in Wikipedia, and only awaits the attention of editors willing to devote some time to the hard work of editing, rather than the easy work of deletion. Pr4ever (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good point; I've begun editing it, so that we can focus on the main issue here, which is notability. Perhaps, if reduced to a stub, a genuine and non-tribute-page article can be built here, if the notability issue is resolved and if we can find a sufficient number of reliable third-party sources unconnected with the subject of the article. However, I'm not seeing that established, especially given that he is employed by two of the sources utilized to establish his notability, El Boricua and Somos Primos. In addition to the use of Wikipedia, Facebook and Wikipedia images as sources, which I've just removed, I have concerns about the reliability of the other sources utilized here. It relies far too heavily on original research and primary sources. Even with substantial cutting I carried out since the this article was nommed for deletion, it reads like a tribute page that belongs on a family website. The bulk of the article is devoted to tributes to the Santiago relying on OR and primary sources, not having received coverage in reliable third-party sources.ScottyBerg (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zero interest in or knowledge of subject here - certainly no axes to grind. After reading through previous AfD discussion, notability seems clear enough. The level of energy and even the length of the article suggest as much. Tchicken7 (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wether the notability is tied to Wikipedia or not I believe the person is notable, especially for readers from Puerto Rico. Also as mentioned above this has been nominated before and the consensus was keep. Although I do admit the article could use some cleanup. Also, IMO notability is subjective and although he may not be notable to someone in Germany for instance or people who are interested in Football, he could and is notable to folks in Puerto rico and media. As long as there are some good references which there are the notability criteria is less important. --Kumioko (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. The result of the previous deletion discussion was "no consensus." Two years have passed since then without material changes to the article apart from the ones I've carried out within the past few minutes. FYI, I became aware of this article because of a conspicuously long entry on Tony Santiago in the article South Bronx. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. As suggested above I've engaged in the hard work of trying to bring this article into shape, and I've failed. There is simply insufficient independent secondary sourcing in sources unconnected with Santiago to create an article. There was multiple sourcing to Wikipedia and websites of questionable reliability like a Crispy News, a lengthy block of text sourced to Facebook, and much of the article remains based on primary sources and articles in two publications employed by the Santiago. The lead's original assertion of notability, based on his work on Wikipedia, was actually sourced to Wikipedia Signpost! There is a lengthy section, still overlong after cut, consisting of tributes from politicians that received zero coverage in reliable sources. The section on his work is sourced to publications that employ him. His writings have received zero professional and outside recognition in secondary sources. Politicians give tributes to constituents frequently; in order to be notable they have to receive coverage in secondary sources. There is none of that here, and the article utterly fails the requirement that the subject of the article be the subject of multiple sources independent of the subject of the article. Given that this article is about a Wikipedia administrator, and that this article was created by that editor's son, it behooves us to apply Wikipedia policies strictly here. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "tributes to constituents" were about someone who has lived for years in Phoenix, AZ, not quite a constituent of Puerto Rico. Second, the tributes went beyond the usual resolution or floor speech, an annual Memorial Day commemorative event, in which he shared the spotlight with a former President and a then-U.S. senator, was dedicated to him, precisely because of his work for Wikipedia, and a ceremony was held in Phoenix to present a commendation to him which was attended, based on one of the photos I saw, by 6 or 7 legislators, not exactly your run-of-the-mill tribute. Third, traditional media is not spending much space to extolling Wikipedia or other new media that competes with them. Fourth, having united the family of a hero with a notable figure that benefitted from the heroism is a particularly notable accomplishment. Once again, Edit but don't delete! Pr4ever (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that "a ceremony was held in Phoenix to present a commendation to him"? Does the article says that? I don't think so. And your excuse for lack of media coverage is also weak. --Damiens.rf 13:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that: "On November 28, 2007, Santiago became the first Puerto Rican to be honored by the Government of Puerto Rico for his work on behalf of Puerto Rico in Wikipedia when the Senate of Puerto Rico recognized him as a military historian and paid him tribute with a Resolution #3603.[citation needed] The resolution was presented at the Arizona Biltmore Hotel by then President of the Senate of Puerto Rico and current Secretary of State, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock and senators Lucy Arce, Juan Eugenio Hernández Mayoral and Jorge Suárez Cáceres on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico." The statement is accompanied by a photograph that shows Tony being presented with something and McClintock, Arce, Suárez and the bulky figure of Sen. Hernández Mayoral are clearly identifiable. Pr4ever (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that received coverage in which reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? I agree with Damiens.rf below. Ignoring all rules on biographies, which is basically what is being asked here, is inappropriate for an AfD discussion, particularly when there is a COI element. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the answer is "none." ScottyBerg (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the 10 articles used as references are inappropriate. At least 4 of them (used in a total of 6 points) are written by Tony himself. Another one (used as repeatedly as reference #7 and #8) is an web article that cites Tony's Wikipedia user page as a reference. In more than one case, dead-links are used as references to passages aggrandizing the subject.

That one finds User:Marine_69-71 a wonderful contributor should no interfere on a judgment about the appropriateness of this article. --Damiens.rf 14:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's subject has been advertising this afd on the Puerto Rico wikiproject, where many editors are his wikifriends. I reinforce the point that we're discussing the deletion of an article, and not of an user. Great users don't deserve articles. They deserve barnstars. --Damiens.rf 21:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The text of that notice is problematic, in that an AfD is not a "vote" and I hope is not interpreted as such by the closing administrator. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The text of it is fine, it's neutral, and everybody calls it voting, even those who know it isn't a vote. The issue is whether approaching WikiProject PuertoRico was likely to solicit a biased response. I'd say advertising this on ANI has more than nullified any such effect, assuming the closer wasn't even looking for it in the first place, which he/she should be as a matter of course. MickMacNee (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - My post there was about COI, and not a solicitation to participate in this AfD, though it was mentioned. Your point re "biased response" articulates my concern. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in secondary sources (sorry, Tony); all I could find was this. I think per WP:GNG and WP:BLP, this page just doesn't make it. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ok, ok, he is my dad. So I might be biased, but, I still have a right to opine and this is my opinion. Antonio Magno Martin (Aqui) 23:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also created the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable military historian. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Tony, there is nothing in the article, even as originally formulated, showing any of the trappings of being a historian, in terms of scholarly publications or books. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See: [2]. He is a notable military historian and has been recognized as such, and this meets or exceeds the necessary criteria. One can safely work outside the confines of academia and many notable people do just that. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. From these [3][4] I'm just about satisfied that a basic opening statement of Tony Santiago is a notable Wikipedia editor specialising in writing about Peurto-Rican history is likely to be supportable (I'm AGF'ing that there is complete separation between the subject and this newspaper). Whether this article is any good at explaining that is another matter, it pretty much needs a top down rewrite by experienced editors, preferably people far far removed from the topics and subject at hand. The previous NC outcome is only relevant if the lack of progress had been down to active resistance, rather than what appears to have been just no real interest from others in kick-starting the development (judging by the lack of talk page activity anyway). As a very obvious starting point - primary and secondary sources can be listed in two separate reflists using the group parameter or other methods. As far as COI goes, I think it would only be fair if Damiens.rf noted in this Afd his on-Wiki prior history with the article subject too [5]. MickMacNee (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those two articles are the only secondary sources in the article, and I don't see how they can conceivably be considered "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Only the second one supports the claim to notability. None of the honors given to this person have been mentioned in Puerto Rican media outlets apart from the ones that employ this person. This isn't Wikipedia Signpost. Would we be seriously considering salvaging this article if this wasn't a Wikipedia administrator? ScottyBerg (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've written biographies for non-Wikipedians with less coverage than this tbh. I've also tried to get some deleted too, and failed - see Tim Marriott pre-cricketing accident. As for articles on Wikipedians, compare those two sources to the independent secondary coverage offered up in something like William Connolley and you'll probably see where I'm coming from. I'm setting the bar at comparing sentences/paragraphs (trivial) to whole pieces (significant), whereas you're probably comparing single pieces to whole books. I know nothing about Peurto Rican media outlets, so I don't feel in the least bit qualified in saying anything either way. I do know however that even 'local news' for somewhere as big as Arizona is like national news attention for pretty much anywhere else. I really do doubt those are the only two 'proper' sources out there, but I fully appreciate that's not something you can prove me wrong on, so I'm happy for the closer to weigh this accordingly. It's a weak keep after all. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this article was created by the subject's son, I think it's inconceivable that there are other secondary sources, "proper" or not, apart from the two in the AZ Republic. I don't think that you need to know anything about Puerto Rican newspapers to recognize that they have not written about Tony Santiago unless he's been on their payroll. The Connelley article has been a source of constant grief, for Connelley among others. I don't think that comparison is a strong argument for keeping. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the second ref offered above more carefully. Its own reference circularizes back to WP, specifically to the subject's user page. The only mainstream independent source seems to be the one AZ republic art. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I stand corrected. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources do not give the impression of substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. (I've found this via the ANI thread.) Sandstein 12:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With all due respect to Tony and the great work he has done for WP, the problem is that there are few, actually just 1 legitimate source that is independent of him. This article has been around for 3 years and many people close to the subject have edited, suggesting the extreme improbability of any other sources being out there. I think this makes it a clear policy-based "delete" (although I realize that that doesn't always hold proper sway, as in the Friedman AfD yesterday). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - what Agricola44 just said. I appreciate Tony's contributions to Wikipedia, but he doesn't pass our notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2011 (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.