Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Marcano

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. Even when we remove the -puppeting, there seems to be a clear consensus here to get rid of the article. Two keep objections are raised, one that there "should" be sources which isn't the same as finding and presenting those sources, and one that obviously has a different view of the quality of the sources to everyone else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Marcano

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

I am just putting this AfD in place so that I can address an editor's concern raised on my talk page. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment. I believe the editor requesting deletion is mistaken- he claims it's a disparaging article about himself, but it appears to be a relatively NPOV article about another person with the same name. I can't really tell if the subject is notable enough to merit an article, but the editor's objections don't seem to be relevant to this AfD. One fix I suggested would be to make a new article for Ray Marcano (boxer) but, as the editor asserts he's NOT notable[1], an alternative might be to rename the existing one to Ray Marcano (journalist) possibly with redirect from Ray Marcano. --Robin Thayler (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think someone would believe an article about someone with the same name but completely different nationality and profession would be about them. In any case, the user has reaffirmed that the article is in fact about him, the journalist (assuming he is who he says he is). ansh 666 19:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The journalist about whom you were publishing article says that you are posting lies and incorrect information, and that you do not want to delete this page!!!!! Shame on you!!!~~--Robokop91 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Robokop91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^{Struck. Personal attacks. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete If the real life person thinks that they aren't notable, then delete it. Clubjustin3 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What the LP thinks is inconsequential. As two-time Pulitzer Prize juror, there should be sources available. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you the burden of proof lies in you to find the sources. "There should be sources" is literally an example provided at WP:MUST as an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. Also, per WP:ANYBIO winning an award is deemed a metric of notability. Notability is not WP:INHERENT if you're only associated with something like the Pulitizer Prize other than winning it. Mkdw ^talk 18:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what the heck, page was moved to Talk:Ray Marcano page deleted, with the actual talk page still at Talk:Ray Marcano. I've reverted a page blanking and marked the current redirect G6 to be moved back. ansh 666 19:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page moved back. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also pointed User:Rmarcano to WP:BLPHELP, I don't know if ORTS will do anything though. ansh 666 19:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Ansh666: ORTS? McDonald of Kindness (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, OTRS. Finger must have slipped. ansh 666 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several users have been trying desperately to get this page deleted, but neither of them qualifies as the sole author of the page so they can't get it speedied - and of course we have no idea who they really are anyhow. However, their wishes are not determinative here. I believe the article can and should be deleted as non-notable. I don't see what being a "Pulitzer Prize juror" has to do with notability; if he had WON a Pulitzer that would be a different story. The claim that he "led" the effort to get Dale Earnhart's autopsy release is not supported by the source [2], which suggests that he and his group supported the effort by the Orlando Sentinel. The claim to being a Fulbright Fellow is not supported by the link [3] and would not confer automatic notability anyhow. Google search does not turn up any additional evidence of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link in the article is the wrong page. This one shows that Marcano received a Fulbright Specialist Grant in 2013. I agree not enough to confirm automatic notability. --Stfg (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm probably missing something here (what's new?), but not knowing anything about boxers (of either sort) I can't see where a Columbian boxer comes into the picture. Also, I cannot see why the original author (no other edits, no user page) is supposed to have links to porn. Again, I fail to see what is disparaging about the page (unless he has really WON a Pulitzer). Who judges the Pulitzer, anyway? Peridon (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Protected I've semi-protected the article for three days. Any admin feel free to extend this or unprotect it. Peridon (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In conducting a WP:BEFORE search, there seem to be very few articles about the journalist. Certainly nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. It's mostly social media hits with other people mixed in with the same name. If this page was given to me on OTRS or AFC, I would have recommended it for deletion or not passed it respectively. The dynamic of the editor claiming to be the individual doesn't really weigh into my decision. Mkdw ^talk 21:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete kindly delete this page because Ray Marcano don't want his information on wikipedia.If the person don't want his bio on wiki.So,it must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahafarooqui (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 March 2015‎ (UTC) — Tahafarooqui (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Confirmed sock (SPI). Mkdw ^talk 05:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-admins can't tell whether the Rmarcano account is the article subject or somebody else, and I have suspicions because a high-level journalist would be unlikely to confuse notability and notoriety as this user has done. But it's probably academic, since notability seems not to have been established. I agree 100% with Mkdw. --Stfg (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could just be a bit of fashion - since the rise of hiphop (where it seems almost obligatory for a performer to have a record (police, not CD) with something more than a parking ticket on it), the use of 'notoriety' by people who don't value the nuances of the English language has increased as they mistake it for 'fame'. Me, I blame the teachers... ;-) Peridon (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But I doubt that the subject of this article belongs in category people who don't value the nuances of the English language. --Stfg (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because a high-level journalist would be unlikely to confuse notability and notoriety as this user has done.Yes This is a main reason . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxdevelopers (talk • contribs) 15:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — Foxdevelopers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Confirmed sock (SPI). Stickee (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note There are concerns that canvassing may be involved in this AFD. Aside from attracting a relatively high level of activity, there are a number of seeming SPA editors involved both here and at the article. Mkdw ^talk 17:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he do not want his page.please delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizwansiddiqui98 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC) — Rizwansiddiqui98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: clear sock puppetry and disruption. Mkdw ^talk 06:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he do not want his page.delete this article, he is an honest man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshi777 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC) — Arshi777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: Clear sock puppetry and disruption. Mkdw ^talk 06:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found some coverage not used in the article in the Associated Press and Englewood Independent [4] [5]. Stickee (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stickee, I think you have a very liberal sense of "significant". I've noticed on other AFDs you've cited two or three sources as presumably meeting GNG/WP:SIGCOV even if they merely mention in passing the individual. Mkdw ^talk 18:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mkdw, both of the articles I've given are solely about the subject of the AfD, not merely "in passing". Stickee (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AP archive has 47 words. To put it in perspective, my initial reply to you above has 44 words if you count the signature. Not exactly what I would determine in depth or significant coverage. Mkdw ^talk 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources in the article (in its various incarnations) nor what has been offered here rises to the level of significant coverage of the subject. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the part about him being head of the Society of Professional Journalists into that article, but otherwise delete. Quityergreeting (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Society of Professional Journalists: Some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to establish notability under WP:BASIC, and subject doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST either. Esquivalience ^t 00:41, 22 March 2015 (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.