Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geena the Latina


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Geena the Latina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cohost on a local FM radio station; notability not demonstrated and I could not find significant coverage in a search. Could be redirected/merged to KHTS-FM. MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Just a run of the mill local radio co-host, not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Appears to be a local talent in the large Latino market of SoCA - need to be careful about WP:SYSTEMIC bias on subjects we may personally have no interest in. For Wikipedia purposes, WP:GNG says need multiple sources about the topic in depth. Typically this is accomplished with magazine, newspaper and online articles of a biographical nature, interviews for example. There is one from DiscoverSD but need more. It says "was featured in 944 magazine “The Tranplants” (May 2009 issue)" but no link or info what depth of coverage. I did find another source in the Sun (Yuma, AZ) called "MTV Tres cameras capture Q's Aqua Party" (May 28, 2009). That's two sources of a biographical nature. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good thought, but the radio station she works for is not a Latino station - it is a Clear Channel station with a Top 40 format, English language and English market - which is why she is their one and only "Latina". I did a search for "Geena la Latina" to see if there was any coverage in Spanish, but I couldn't find anything. Rereading the article, it doesn't appear that she has ever had anything to do with the Latino market. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and MelanieN. As a side comment, even if someone is notable within a certain non-anglophone community, that doesn't demonstrate notability in English language media. But as MelanieN has informed, this person is English-speaking and not working for Spanish language media. Laval (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I made this same response to you in another AFD, but it bears repeating, : that this is the English language Wikipedia only means that we write it in English for English-speaking readers. There is no requirement that sources demonstrating notability be in English. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is an official policy, then I emphatically disagree with that. As I have stated several times, and certainly bears repeating again and again, it is well within the rights of the community to impose such a requirement. Also, I would like to see the exact policy which clarifies this matter (if such a policy exists), as I would like to bring that up at some point and work towards reassessing such an incredibly flawed and incorrect policy. Furthermore, as history has proven over the years, Wikipedia functions as a community-led project. The community has every right to impose any restriction so long as there is consensus to impose such restrictions. This is exactly how current policies have ultimately been formulated, as a result of discussion and debate among community members. Change is good. That bears plenty of repetition, doesn't it? Laval (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Postdlf here. If I had found significant coverage about her in Spanish-language media, I would have considered her to be notable. As I noted, I did search for "Geena la Latina" specifically to see if I could find any Spanish language coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , within WP:V at WP:NONENG ("Citations to non-English sources are allowed."), and within WP:N at WP:GNG ("Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language"). Both exactly where you'd expect to find the issue addressed. What did you read that made you think the contrary? It's one thing to assert what you think policy should be; it's another thing to assert it as if you think it's already policy when, in fact, policy expressly says the opposite. The former is an opinion; the latter is a mistake. At any rate, WP:VPP is the place to propose such a wide-reaching change, not within individual AFD !votes, though I'd recommend you not waste your time because there is zero chance of that gaining consensus. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is no requirement that our sources be in English; the only requirement is that we write our article in English. As long as the sources meet WP:RS it doesn't matter what language they're in — as long as there's somebody around here with the necessary language skills to ensure that they properly verify our content, it's not necessary for everyone to be able to read the original source. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Someone who is notable would likely have an independently written secondary-sourced bio, but even searching under her real name, Geena Aguilar, turns up nothing but a mention that she was one of the attendees at an awards ceremony. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As per most of the usual articles of this ilk here the usual response I give; average morning zoo DJ in average radio market, and seems to be more a symptom of KHTS-FM's article being a horribly unchecked cheerleading mess than anything. We're not a host for a radio personality's resume or CV, and that's what this article reads as.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Single-market media personality with no strong evidence of non-local notability provided. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (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.