Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck de Caro


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Chuck de Caro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TNT and WP:JUNK- plain and simple. This article is a mess, written by what appears to be the subject without decent sourcing. I attempted a WP:PROD so that the article could be recreated without prejudice, but the editor contested it. I recommend deleting without prejudice towards a new article with adequate sourcing written in a NPOV, since I believe the subject passes WP:BIO. There's not much here to save though. The Dissident Aggressor 19:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As the editor contesting the deletion (and I am NOT the subject). I have added references today and will continue to update the article and source the material as my schedule permits Skaneid (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The career and sourcing are idiosyncratic. There is this old WaPo story about a de Caro idea that never got off the ground.   Similar in Baltimore Sun  serious stories in serious newspapers; about a proposal that didn't fly.  They and some of the other sources now in article could probably be used to source a brief article on de Caro, if User:Skaneid or someone else were willing to look at how WP articles are written and take the time to attempt write an acceptable one. Such an article would, for example, need to show that the co-authored books were not merely written and printed, but reviewed or written up in reliable sources.  The shooting  was dramatic.  I am glad to know that Mr. de Caro will recover.  If Skaneid or someone would read other articles on journalists and writers, and study Wikipedia style and sourcing guidelines, this article might be improved to the point where it could pass the notability threshold.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate E.M. Gregory's advise. Silly me, I actually was using the WP article on Dan Rather as a style guide. I will continue to work to improve this article as I find both the man and his work fascinating. Skaneid (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The publications are not books, but trivial pamphlets or conference reports, with a length of between 10 and 30 pages not books, or at least the half of them I could find a working link for.  None of them are in WorldCat -- and not even in Amazon.   DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Most of this article is written without proper citations using one-off editor names that have been used exclusively to edit this article (HarrietteG, Clancy1234, Skaneid, and Skastrolabe), and showing a familiarity with de Caro that raises the suspicion that he wrote it himself. There was only one citation in the references section, one that I added when I created the references section, and it pertained only to the de Caro shooting in 2015. Citations added since this deletion was proposed are improperly coded. Apart from that small paragraph about the shooting, the rest of the article is subject to removal because it is original research. Delete the article and rewrite in correct form using only material that survives scrutiny with proper citations from reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia. Tear it up, begin again, and adhere to rules in any rewrite. — O'Dea  (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E - this person is only approaching our standards of notability because second amendment enthusiasts have latched onto his recent hotel gunfight as a political plank. His previous (trivial) mentions in various news media are to be expected from someone who was a reporter for many years; none of the coverage is about him, it's about stuff he reported on, much of it written by him. I share DGG's findings in looking for his publications, and find no evidence to suggest notability. With respect to the article's creators, please see our reliable source guidelines, especially as they relate to YouTube and blogs. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.