Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gallegos


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Gallegos

 * – ( View AfD View log )

University student who has been appointed as a "student regent" (a non-voting member of the board of regents) for the university which he attends. Notable to University of North Texas students, perhaps, but not to the community at large. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At a time when Texas is facing tremendous cuts in their Higher Education formula funding, it is imperative that students, and citizens of the state of Texas have a more clear and present picture of the members appointed to serve their interests on respective university system boards. These boards are the gateway to hundreds of millions in state tax-payer dollars and transparency must be upheld. Wikipedia is a fantastic outlet for this type of transparency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untregents (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "fantastic outlet for transparency".  Its intention is to present information that has already been deemed notable as evidenced by significant and widespread coverage in independent sources, not to inform a select group of people (the citizens Texas) about the board of Regents.  And, it should be noted, that as a Student Member, Gallegos does not serve the interests of the citizens of Texas.  Gallegos is a non-voting member.  As such, it would appear that his function is to represent a voice of the students in the board's decisions, and to represent those decisions back to the student body.  As noted above, this may be an important function to the students of UNT and the citizens of Texas, but not to the readers of Wikipedia as a whole.  There are other venues through which this information can be rightfully disseminated, including the university's website, the UNT Board of Regents' website, etc.  But not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No notability, no references. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete "it is imperative that students, and citizens of the state of Texas have a more clear and present picture of the members appointed to serve their interests on respective university system boards." OK - go to LinkedIn or AboutUs (or as most people do, both...). As has been pointed out above, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a means of spreading information about some minor functionary or appointee. And such persons, and even State Governors, do not dictate the contents of Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What?! I agree that this may not be the best place to disseminate state information, but basing revocation soley on the idea that this article is "not to inform a select group of people (the citizens Texas)" about a certain topic is insane. We have tons of articles on Wikipedia that only serve a small segment of the populous. I did a quick search of other regent systems and most of them have a profile. I agree with the above comment. If appointed officials are responsible for taxpayers' dollars, taxpayers should have the opportunity to have that information provided to them. What a great opportunity for Wikipedia to serve the citizens of Texas. Why would they have a non-voting member on a board if they didn't matter? These assumptions of revocation are all based on the assumption that this person is ineffective in his capacity. I respectfully disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.24.35 (talk • contribs)
 * This argument has no basis in any Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Kinu t /c  06:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:BIO, no coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Kinu t /c  06:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete subject is not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Lovetinkle (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If taxpayers' dollars paid for Wikipedia, or or it were an exclusively American institution, you might have a point. "What a great opportunity for Wikipedia to serve the citizens of Texas." No, this is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of minor functionaries and/or appointees. I suggest you check the profiles of those others see what other notability they have. If they have no more than this subject has, feel free to tag them, or bring them to our attention and we'll do it. As it is, if you are looking for free webspace to let people know who you are (as appears to be the case), follow my suggestion and try those two sites mentioned (or many others that are similar).  Peridon (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No neutral sources. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2011 (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.