Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joaquín Santiago


 * 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. This is not a headcount. Discounting all mere WP:ILIKEIT arguments, and all arguments that merely assert "he is notable, there are enough sources" without actually producing such, the sole policy-based conclusion of this debate is that those sources that are currently cited in the article fail to even prove his existence, and those sources that were adduced during this AfD – while demonstrating his existence – fail to substantiate his notability and do not (yet) contain enough biographical material to base an article on. While the person as such may not be a "hoax" as initially suspected (the news snippets that turned up during this debate do demonstrate he existed – or exists?, and internally we can certainly accept Tony's word for it that he was his father), the article as it stood clearly was a hoax creation, being based on multiple instances of crudely forged citations, which can only be explained through bad faith on the part of the initial creator.

Given the absence of anything safely sourceable at this point, deletion is the only option. No prejudice against re-creation if and when proper sources are found, but the current material is unsuitable even as a temporary basis for future work, so it is better to just start from scratch. If somebody wants to do that, please do so in a sandbox and ask for thorough review before moving back to mainspace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Joaquín Santiago

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't know what exactly is going on with this article. The sources currently in the article do not in any way back up the information, as the few that are accessible make no mention of Santiago at all. claims that he has some information (see User_talk:Marine_69-71), but is mostly unable to use it since he doesn't know its origins. A search on Google for "Joaquín Santiago" + "Teatro Puerto Rico" gives no hits outside Wikipedia mirrors, and his name does not show up on Google Books.

He may still have a claim to notability, but the fishy sourcing of this article has me suspicious, and the lack of availability of reliable sources that do mention him is a major concern. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This does indeed look like a hoax. The account which created the article has done nothing before and since. Andrew (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Tony the Marine (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Out of loyalty and respect of my father. However, the deletion issues are understandable as I have discussed the issue with User: TenPoundHammer. I quote:


 * Keep Clearly not a hoax, and sufficient sources exist. Redirect to Tony Santiago while the sourcing is improved, if absolutely necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What sources? I've not found anything which checks out yet.  For example, the article claims that "In 1958 Santiago danced in, and choreographed, the feature film Crowded Paradise...".  There's a detailed list of credits for this movie online but the subject isn't in them.  Even if this person did exist, it looks like a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL.  The fact that the person worked in showbiz and so can drop a lot of names of people who are actually notable, doesn't make them notable too. Andrew (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What sources? Did you not hear me say that the sources currently in the article are totally bogus and do not mention him at all? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , the "sources" used in the article do not support the sentences they're attached to. The article was created by once by a single purpose account that made it look like a well sourced article, but it's not. Take a look. --damiens.rf 13:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep not a hoax. Online sources may be hard to find, but given time the article can be better sourced and improved upon. Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So we can just let it sit, full of sources that are clearly misinforming and do not actually mention the content at all, while Google throws up its hands and says "I never heard of you"? Where do you expect the sources to just magically sprout from? The article's already had seven years; how many more does it need? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG, among other things. I'm not seeing anything particularly notable he's done, even if we take everything in the article at face value without proper sourcing. Having some association with Jose Feliciano fails due to WP:NOTINHERITED. Not being a hoax (as yet unproven) wouldn't do it either. (However, we should hold off on the NOTMEMORIAL - the guy's still alive.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - First of all, let's cut the "Hoax" BS out of respect of my father and myself, a long time member of Wikipedia. He may not be notable and that is fine with me. Now, there is one thing that I find amazing and bewildering is that all of a sudden I have received two emails from "Richie Blondet" (Whom I thought was named "Roberto"). I am going to share them with those who here may be interested regardless of the outcome, because it seems that he may have some information in regard to the issue.

Tony the Marine (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sometimes -- unintentionally, and through no one's fault -- a cultural bias can creep into the choices we make. Joaquín Santiago was extremely well known in the Puerto Rican community of New York during the 1950s - before the establishment of the internet, and outside the radar of New York's "mainstream" press. The many headlines and articles from El Diario La Prensa during that period (and El Imparcial and El Mundo on the island of Puerto Rico) were not preserved by the U.S. academic establishment, in the same way that New York Times, Daily News, Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety were preserved.


 * As for "working in showbiz and dropping a lot of names," it appears that Joaquín Santiago did much more than that. He developed theatrical venues, staged entire productions, wrote and produced radio shows, discovered and managed world-class talents. Ed Sullivan, Ted Mack, Steve Allen, Larry King, Dick Cavett and even Johnny Carson, Jay Leno and David Letterman essentially did the same thing: hosted talent shows without "being" the primary talent themselves. They simply did it in a more familiar cultural context (English-speaking U.S. shows) and a larger media frame (prime-time and late-night television).


 * Similarly, during his short life span of 33 years Brian Epstein managed essentially one client (the Beatles) and Colonel Tom Parker is known for one primary client (Elvis Presley). Are they dismissed as non-notable because they had basically one client, or because they merely "worked in showbiz and dropped names?" No, they are not.


 * Jack Lescoulie, Les Crane, Hy Gardner...these are not exactly household names. Were they removed from Wikipedia as "not notable?" No, they weren't.


 * Joaquin Santiago's career is no less culturally significant, and his life's work is no less meaningful, than any of the above-named gentlemen. In fact, Santiago's work is arguably more significant than these other individuals, because it provided a cultural lifeline to an otherwise forgotten and ignored heritage. Joaquín Santiago played a major role in preserving Puerto Rican cultural heritage, under nearly insurmountable odds, at a time when being Latino was not "fashionable." Let's work on the citations in this Joaquín Santiago article -- but please, let us not diminish the contribution and significance of another man's work, merely because it does not register as brightly on (an already skewed) cultural radar screen. Sarason (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Gallery - and for those who have insulted my father and myself by stating that he is a "hoax", here is a gallery which even if deleted should bring to an end such remarks


 * Can you provide hi-res scans of these clippings? These could be very useful to provide supporting sources.Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Great Idea Cwobeel. I reloaded and enlarged the Clippings page and ECO's de Broadway. I just hope that with the new PX's, that they can be well seen. Just click on the image and click to see the enlarged clippings. Remember, though understandable, they are in Spanish, Tony the Marine (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have written articles about pre-internet radio and vaudeville people such as Dan Daniels and Gustav Walter (impresario). In my experience, it's always possible to turn up something online even if you're going back over 100 years.  If this can't be done for the subject then this indicates that they are not notable enough for our purposes.  Editors who are here because they are related to the subject or wish to promote Puerto Rican history have a blatant conflict-of-interest per WP:SOAP. Andrew (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one of the most ridiculous comments I've seen in quite some time. "If no sources can be found on the Internet, they are not notable enough for our purposes"yeah, he really did say that. Fortunately, this is directly contradicted by policy. The "COI" and "SOAP" comments are every bit as absurd. Sarason has made a cogent point regarding systemic bias in Wikipedia. Tony the Marine (a Wikipedian in good standing of 10 years) isn't here to puff up his father. He'srightfullypissed off at the fact that people continued to allege that his father is a "hoax", even after he repeatedly corrected them. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree for the most part with you Andrew. As a personal policy I do not interfere with the articles written by others nor do I regularly check up on them since I do not include them in my "watchlist". However, I am not going to stand around and let people insult my father by calling him a hoax. Would you? I don't care who considers defending the honor of one's father a blatant conflict-of-interest, because this is not the case. If anyone believes that he is not notable and wants the article deleted, well OK, but no one has the right to call him a "hoax", OK? Where does the "here because they are related to the subject or wish to promote Puerto Rican history " come from? I am not here to promote the subject, just to show that he is the real thing, plus I am not here to promote "Puerto Rican" history. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment In the $2 1/2$ years since this article was created, I see only one edit by Tony the Marine - and that is an extremely minor edit. I therefore see no COI editing here. Certainly Tony the Marine cannot be accused of COI for responding to the Deletion notice, especially since he has documentation which helps others to make their determination. The documentation in the "gallery" is indeed helpful, and does not constitute COI editing of the page itself.


 * I cannot assign much weight to the complaint about "promoting Puerto Rican history." The Wikimedia Foundation has honored Tony the Marine precisely for his contributions in this area -- not for "promoting" Puerto Rican history, but for documenting and preserving it with sources, citations, and thorough and copious research. I would submit that there is a great and vital distinction, between COI editing and knowing what you are talking about. Sarason (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Nothing that can't be resolved with a trip to a library with a microfiche archive. If people here are so worried about sources, just tag paragraphs with cn and give editors a chance. It may take time, so what, if anybody in a rush?. But to delete an article because there are no online sources it is an aberration. Cwobeel (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to keep biographies of living people awaiting for sources like that. --damiens.rf 17:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not? Unless the material is contentious, there is no reason to delete. Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a policy: WP:BLP. And it helps to keep wikipedia free from fake self-promotion articles. --damiens.rf 13:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we can exercise editorial common sense too. I don't see this article any close to a self-promotion piece. Those type of articles are pretty obvious when you see them. Cwobeel (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagreed. The article attributes a lot of achievements to this Mr. Santiago, like discovering (really) famous artist as kids and being the driving for behind the (also inflated) success of a music hall back in the 50ths. --damiens.rf 18:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "This Mr. Santiago", really Damiens?

Let me remind you, that the Puerto Ricans who moved to the United States in the 1950s, were the pioneers of the those who were to follow them and that is why there is a lack of news coverage of their initial achievements in the English language American newspapers. Those interested can listen to the NEWS 12 interview of my father which I have provided. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia accepts news coverage in other languages as references. Just provide them. And please understand that it's no use to take things personally here. --damiens.rf 20:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With this piece of local news coverage Marine provided we now have a reference for (1) Joaquim Santiago shared the stage with Sara Montiel in Theatro Puerto Rico for 3 days in 1954 and (2) Joaquim Santiago is a radio producer. This may not be enough to support notability, but it's so far the only referenced information we have about him. --damiens.rf 20:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a little unclear about the "self-promotion" allegation. It is clear that Tony the Marine was not involved in the editing of this Joaquín Santiago article. Is someone alleging that Joaquín Santiago wrote this article himself? Is there any evidence for this? If not, then we need to drop this term "self-promotion" because there is no evidence for it - and thus it does not apply here. Sarason (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe not "self", but the article obviously promotes the subject. And it has been worse before. --damiens.rf  20:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I believe this has way too many holes in the sourcing to pass muster, many refs do not at all support the supposed facts. It is unfortunate that reliable media sources in the 50's didn't cover these 'pioneers', however exceptions should not be made or standards ignored to compensate. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO ADMIN:
 * Is a non-registered user allowed to vote in an AfD? If not, then please ignore the vote immediately above. Thank you. Sarason (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes they is. If not, admins would know and they wouldn't need a note in bold. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for educating Sarason for me, otherwise I would have struck his comments. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO NON-ADMINS:
 * This is not a VOTE. Anyone is allowed to provide arguments. Arguments will never be ignored, but judged by their merit. Thank you. --damiens.rf 16:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Is it not unusual to post full content of emails as above? Also I find the creation of the article suspicious, a new account operated by an obviously experienced editor appears & creates this article over a day or two, then disappears. Smells like a sock.94.195.46.205 (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable media sources did cover these pioneers; in this case, they are largely offline sources. Offline sources are every bit as acceptable as online sources. The nominator complains about "the few that are accessible", and one of the votes to delete has opined that a lack of online sources is a valid reason to delete an articleit is not. No policy-compliant reason to delete has been put forth by anyone yet. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We are assessing notability here and the lack of online sources is indicative. For example, there's no shortage of online sources for the Teatro Puerto Rico but the subject doesn't seem to show up in any of them.  If there were some indication that there were significant offline sources then you might have a point but there isn't as the cuttings above aren't good enough.  They are so thin that even name-checking the subject in another article is probably undue weight.  They are quite inadequate to support the puff-piece we have here. Andrew (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , the problem is not about "online sources". The article used a lot of "offline" source (books, magazine) but they were fake sources, that do not cover what they were supposed to.
 * Someone with an obvious ax to grind tag-bombing the article makes them "fake sources"? Sure, sure. Whatever the case, very real sources have been provided here on this page, but I guess that's all part of this horrible conspiracy to get this "fictitious" person into Wikipedia. Unbelievable! Joefromrandb (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * After checking the history of the anon-user above, I now realize that I was trolled by an IP-sock. I'll leave my comments in place, as they're still germane to the issue at hand. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in that history that warrants the "trolling" comment. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * An obvious sockpuppet making accusations of sockpuppetry isn't trolling? Come on, Doctor, you're better than that. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not obvious to me. If you can name them, name them, and I'll be glad to have a look. Or start an SPI. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't even begin to name them, but I know that when someone's very first edit is to WP:AN, that person has been here before. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find it difficult to accept the validity of many of the arguments here when the very first footnoted comment, that the subject "discovered and promoted" Feliciano, is not verified in the citation at all. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's get a few things straight here.
 * I see no reason to suspect socking--so the creator, is an SPA from way back when. That's not evidence of anything, only that they had one interest, wrote the article, and then left. No reason to suppose Tony or anyone else had anything to do with it.
 * By a similar token, there is no reason to call anyone a troll. That an IP may make their first edit to AN may suggest (may) that they are not a new user--but their comments aren't trolling (even if wrongfully accusatory).
 * Speaking as an editor, it's clear to me that the article suffers/suffered from inflated claims that aren't verified by the provided sources, or that may have insufficient/unreliable sourcing. That's troubling, and may sway anyone toward delete.
 * By a similar token, that doesn't mean it's a hoax, so let's have no more talk of that.
 * Tony's zeal is well-known but that doesn't mean their comments are invalid. Still, copying emails and other commentary in an AfD is not helpful. That someone emails them to say "hey, certainly notable" doesn't make the article stronger, and a short clip of a telephone interview on the local news doesn't help much either. Sorry, but local news, it's just that--local news. And that someone is interviewed doesn't mean they made someone else a star, or are a star in their own right.
 * Back to the beginning: let's not let this get nasty. Personal attacks help no one. If this article is to be saved it's by improving it and showing that reliable sources establish notability. If there are no sources, there can be no proven notability, even if that's the result of "skewed" historiography: that's sad but true. The burden on the "keep" voters, and I'm speaking as an admin now, is to prove that the sources that are available prove notability, and tackling the verifiably inflated Feliciano claim would be a start. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Dr.Mies, I assure you I am neither sock nor troll. As to the creation of the article, as has already been noted so very many of the sources fail verification. Some of these claims are private details of Santiago Sr. such as info about his birth/sibs/schooling/employment/connection to the Teatro/residence etc etc. Who could know such intimate details of the man without recourse to sources? Close friend? Family member? I do not believe it is the work of a paid article service such as Wiki-PR/Morning277, but somebody has spun such a cloud of fluff & puff in order to make an MEMORIAL about a non-notable person. rgds 94.195.46.205 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep One thing is to question the lack of online sources, but what I find unnecessary is all the drama created by dropping the hoax descriptor. I think if you are going to throw personal accusation of forgery you must have a strong argument beside the fact of failed verification. So indeed this has become personal. The only solid fact here, besides the wiki-lawyering is that the subject is indeed notable but we lack online sourcing for the time being. --Jmundo (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We do accept offline sources to support "the subject is indeed notable". Do you know any such source? --damiens.rf  16:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This is ridiculous. Maybe this Joaquin Santiago did not discover the so-called Feliciano person. Maybe the author of the article was misinformed. This is not a reason in itself to nominate the article for deletion. It seems to me that this person did play a part in the introduction of early Hispanic culture in the Bronx sector of New York. What had to be done in the first place was place "citation needed" in the areas that needed them and remove the material which could not be verified and/or re-write the article. You all should not rush into things and conclussions. Plus, some of you should stop indirectly creating an unfounded speculation as to the articles author since that is not the subject, it adds nothing to this discussion and is distastful. 74.202.196.178 (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What would remain in this article once we remove all unreferenced claims? --damiens.rf 16:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, "the so-called Feliciano person", that's more than a little short-sighted, and insulting to boot. We're talking about José Feliciano, who is a huge star, and if the claim in the lead is correct (I still haven't seen evidence of it) than we have pretty much immediate notability. So, speaking of "distasteful", please don't use such language. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete We have no reliable source (online or offline) that supports what is said on this biography. There's a lot of reference footnotes, but they simply fail to support what is said on the article. --<span class="I_STALK_DAMIENS">damiens.rf 22:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes. I am the grandson, but I have to say shame on you, Damiens, you know perfectly well that if you removed unreferenced content you could at least convert the article into a "stub" and let others expand it. I mean you should know because you have experience in doing that to Puerto Rican related articles. Here is an example of how you removed content from the article of "Lucecita Benitez" and converted it into a "stub": Before and After. Antonio Martin (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2014 (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.