Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Luis Jiménez (radio host)

User:Bearcat sure did try hard to backpedal from using notability as a core motivation for his AfD, after I called him on Ameri/Anglocentrism, despite the fact that most of his first sentence in the AfD was explicitly about notability, his next sub-sentences were about reverse-synthesizing an argument against any assertion of notability, and then he linked three different WP guidelines that specifically deal with notability. GMAFB. He might have done better linking to a WP that says that poor sourcing, alone, is a reason for deletion, if one does exist. But AFAIK, poor sourcing is a job for, not for AfD. Such is deletionism, and ethnocentric deletionism at that. But then again, to some, deletionism and cultural bias exclusionism is what makes Wikipedia great! After all, WP barnstars don't lie. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 07:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "Ameri/Anglocentric" about a notability argument. There is no requirement that reliable sources be in English, for instance, and nothing about my nomination statement implied that there is — but there is a requirement that reliable sources be present in the article (see WP:BLPPROD, for example, where unsourcedness is in and of itself grounds for deletion.) As I noted in response to your false accusation the first time, lots of articles are sourced well enough, and contain enough substance, that notability is plainly apparent to any reader regardless of whether they've personally heard of the subject or not: for example, I had never heard of Kirsten Lühmann before scanning a category just now to seek out an example of this very point, but the fact that I'm not personally knowledgeable about German politicians does not make her non-notable in and of itself — her article contains enough substance and enough sourcing that her notability is properly demonstrated, and plainly evident to any reader, regardless of whether that reader has preexisting knowledge of her or not.
 * Which means that no, the nomination was not based on "well, I've never personally heard of him" — it was based on "this article, as written, is not stating or sourcing a valid reason why a radio personality would get an encyclopedia article". If the exact same article had been written about a radio personality in my city, whom I accordingly had heard of because I hear him or her on the radio every day, I would still have nominated it for deletion on the exact same grounds — in fact, I have AFDed articles about radio personalities I'm personally familiar with because their notability wasn't being properly demonstrated or sourced. And I've left alone many, many articles about radio personalities whose notability was being properly demonstrated and sourced but whom I had never personally heard of before, because either way, my personal familiarity or unfamiliarity with the topic has no bearing on whether they qualify for an encyclopedia article or not.
 * Not one single solitary time in my entire Wikipedia "career", in fact, have I ever confused notability (which is by definition a measure of the sourcing present to support an article) with the question of whether I was personally familiar or unfamiliar with the topic. I routinely support the retention of articles where people have made misguided nominations of articles that properly demonstrated and sourced notability but the nomination was clearly based on "well, I've never heard of the guy" — and I've supported the deletion of articles about plenty of people I am personally familiar with (even, on more than one occasion, all the way to the level of actually being directly acquainted with them in my social life.)
 * So, to TLDR it, there was not one iota of "ethnocentrism" involved here whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)