287:(quite often ignored in the rush to establish the "Additional criteria" as the be-all and end-all) is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Deletion policy holds very strongly that attempts to improve the article should be taken before filing AfD, which flies in the face of the inference that G-News hits are worthless because they haven't been cited in the article yet. So what stopped you?
323:
as well as less famous sources. 30 year career as a top-rated host in a major
American city plus significant national attention means this subject easily vaults the verifiability and notability hurdles. Indeed, the article needs expansion to cover his impact on the anti-Apartheid movement in more
251:
says nothing about Google News hits establishing notability, citations demonstrating wide coverage from 3rd party sources does. Are none of these Globe articles worth citing? The article still has no references. Most of these Google News hits are from the Boston Globe. Is this person notable
228:
123:
fails to establish how this radio personality is notable. No mention of awards, industry contributions, or syndication that would indicate that he is notable outside of the local market. Zero verifiable 3rd party references.
256:
calls for widely recognition for contribution to a person's industry and/or awards or some other honor to demonstrate notability. He's been covered frequently in the Globe but so have most other local DJs.
278:
certainly accounted for many of those hits, but I'm missing the point; as one of the most respected and prominent newspapers in the country, it definitely counts as a reliable source. That being said, the
144:
116:
196:
170:
225:
83:
78:
87:
70:
17:
351:
36:
350:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
333:
295:
266:
238:
211:
185:
159:
133:
52:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
74:
262:
129:
49:
258:
125:
329:
207:
181:
155:
66:
58:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
288:
231:
325:
284:
253:
248:
227:. Heck, his on-air ID back in the late 1970s and early 1980s gets 5 G-news cites
203:
177:
151:
104:
307:
as article now has many references from such reliable secondary sources as
220:
And zero attempt to find any, it seems. "Charles
Laquidara" returns
344:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
111:
100:
96:
92:
145:list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
354:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
197:list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions
171:list of Radio-related deletion discussions
195:: This debate has been included in the
169:: This debate has been included in the
143:: This debate has been included in the
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
371:
347:Please do not modify it.
334:05:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
296:13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
267:03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
239:02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
212:15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
186:15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
160:15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
134:02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
53:22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
252:outside of Boston?
224:hits on Google News
317:The New York Times
44:The result was
214:
200:
188:
174:
162:
148:
67:Charles Laquidara
59:Charles Laquidara
362:
349:
321:The Boston Globe
292:
235:
201:
191:
175:
165:
149:
139:
114:
108:
90:
34:
370:
369:
365:
364:
363:
361:
360:
359:
358:
352:deletion review
345:
290:
233:
110:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
368:
366:
357:
356:
339:
337:
336:
301:
300:
299:
298:
242:
241:
215:
189:
163:
121:
120:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
367:
355:
353:
348:
342:
341:
340:
335:
331:
327:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
303:
302:
297:
294:
293:
286:
283:criterion of
282:
277:
273:
270:
269:
268:
264:
260:
255:
250:
247:
244:
243:
240:
237:
236:
229:
226:
223:
219:
216:
213:
209:
205:
198:
194:
190:
187:
183:
179:
172:
168:
164:
161:
157:
153:
146:
142:
138:
137:
136:
135:
131:
127:
118:
113:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
346:
343:
338:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
289:
280:
275:
271:
245:
232:
221:
217:
192:
166:
140:
122:
45:
43:
31:
28:
305:Strong Keep
291:Ravenswing
281:fundamental
234:Ravenswing
50:Flowerparty
324:detail. -
274:Yes, the
204:• Gene93k
178:• Gene93k
152:• Gene93k
326:Dravecky
313:Newsweek
259:Rtphokie
126:Rtphokie
117:View log
246:Comment
84:protect
79:history
319:, and
285:WP:BIO
272:Reply:
254:WP:BIO
249:WP:BIO
112:delete
88:delete
276:Globe
218:Keep:
115:) – (
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
330:talk
309:TIME
263:talk
230:.
208:talk
193:Note
182:talk
167:Note
156:talk
141:Note
130:talk
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
222:358
199:.
173:.
147:.
332:)
315:,
311:,
265:)
257:--
210:)
184:)
158:)
132:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
328:(
261:(
206:(
202:—
180:(
176:—
154:(
150:—
128:(
119:)
109:(
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.