Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Patrick (radio host)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No Consensus -> Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dan Patrick (radio host)[edit]
Unnotable radio talk show host. Gets only 698 Google hits. He can be adequately covered at KSEV. Johntex 06:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Patrick is a notable & newsworthy political figure in the Houston area, also author of widely published book ISBN 0785262865 Rangerdude 06:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That book title gets 18 Google hits. Please define your idea of "widely published". Johntex 06:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:POINT - VfD also seems to be retaliation by User:Johntex for other disputes on Texas Media Watch & Houston ChronicleRangerdude
- Comment - the above statement is incorrect and google counts are mischaracterization. The book gets over 400 hits for the full title spelled out and 800 for the abbreviated title. "Dan Patrick" and "Houston" gets 23,000+ hits. "Dan Patrick" and "Talk Radio" gets 734. "Dan Patrick" and "conservative" gets 3,460. "Dan Patrick" and C.L.O.U.T. gets 333. "Dan Patrick" and "KPRC" (one of his old stations) gets 301. "Dan Patrick" and "-ESPN" (as in excluding the sportscaster Dan Patrick) gets 23,000+ hits. etc. Rangerdude 07:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is proof the full title of the book gets 18 hits. [1] Johntex 07:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This one says 425 [2]. Furthermore, per WP:BIO standards book significance is measured not by googling but by copies in print, the minimum being 5,000. Patrick's book well exceeds that number. Rangerdude 07:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is proof the full title of the book gets 18 hits. [1] Johntex 07:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the above statement is incorrect and google counts are mischaracterization. The book gets over 400 hits for the full title spelled out and 800 for the abbreviated title. "Dan Patrick" and "Houston" gets 23,000+ hits. "Dan Patrick" and "Talk Radio" gets 734. "Dan Patrick" and "conservative" gets 3,460. "Dan Patrick" and C.L.O.U.T. gets 333. "Dan Patrick" and "KPRC" (one of his old stations) gets 301. "Dan Patrick" and "-ESPN" (as in excluding the sportscaster Dan Patrick) gets 23,000+ hits. etc. Rangerdude 07:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Local radio hack doesn't meet WP:BIO standards. Quale 07:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the above. Per WP:BIO "Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia...
- "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" - Patrick is a major political figure in Houston who has received extensive press coverage for his activities.
- "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" - Patrick is a published author of a book that's sold well over 5,000 copies.
- "Well known entertainment figures, such as TV/movie producers, directors, writers, and actors who have starring roles, or a series of minor roles, in commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more" - Patrick is a TV personality who has held positions on several different stations' TV news broadcasts in Houston - a media market that exceeds well over 5,000 in audience share. Rangerdude 07:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment his station got a 1.8 arbitron according to this [3], which I believe is somewhere in the 30,000 listeners range. Rangerdude 07:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks. That is not conclusive evidence since we don't know how much of that is his show. Still, together with whatever the book has done, I agree it is likely he is reaching at least 5,000 people. I reiterate that what you quote above is a guideline, not a policy. I disagree with this guideline because I believe media people face a higher bar because they naturally reach a lot of people by virtue of their occupation. In the spirit of cooperative editing, I will take some time to reconsider my vote in light of the additional evidence you have produced. Thanks again. Johntex 07:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - use a little common sense. KSEV is a well known station in Houston, Texas - one of the top 10 media broadcast markets in the country - and Patrick has the prime afternoon drive slot. Based on that alone it's safe to say that he gets well over 5,000 listeners. And even if he did not on radio, Patrick was also a newscaster on the evening broadcast of at least two different stations in the same media market - enough to gather him well over 5,000 viewers on any given night. Rangerdude 15:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again you miss my main point. There is no policy that says we have to include anyone who has over 5,000 listeners. Johntex 19:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is a very specific guideline though that is formally considered as such and used as a basic measure for the propriety of biography inclusions. Per that guideline, Patrick qualifies on three separate counts - as a significant local political figure, as an author, and as a media personality. And yes, WP:BIO is a much stronger basis for determining an article's appropriateness than your random, arbitrary, unscientific and manipulation-susceptable "google" measure, so I'll yield to it. Rangerdude 19:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again you miss my main point. There is no policy that says we have to include anyone who has over 5,000 listeners. Johntex 19:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - use a little common sense. KSEV is a well known station in Houston, Texas - one of the top 10 media broadcast markets in the country - and Patrick has the prime afternoon drive slot. Based on that alone it's safe to say that he gets well over 5,000 listeners. And even if he did not on radio, Patrick was also a newscaster on the evening broadcast of at least two different stations in the same media market - enough to gather him well over 5,000 viewers on any given night. Rangerdude 15:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks. That is not conclusive evidence since we don't know how much of that is his show. Still, together with whatever the book has done, I agree it is likely he is reaching at least 5,000 people. I reiterate that what you quote above is a guideline, not a policy. I disagree with this guideline because I believe media people face a higher bar because they naturally reach a lot of people by virtue of their occupation. In the spirit of cooperative editing, I will take some time to reconsider my vote in light of the additional evidence you have produced. Thanks again. Johntex 07:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment his station got a 1.8 arbitron according to this [3], which I believe is somewhere in the 30,000 listeners range. Rangerdude 07:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rangerdude's evidence. Kappa 09:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability not established. Megan1967 09:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: He is a figure of local import only. His book is not exactly racing up the charts. His radio show is not widely syndicated. On the other hand, there is another Dan Patrick who works for ESPN who is on ESPN Radio some of the time. Isn't he a "Dan Patrick (radio host)?" Were this guy to have acted upon the Houston area in such a way as to have caused a significant change in it, then the local would be national. As it is, he's an entertainer, and we don't want articles on all the "funny DJ's" from the morning shows or the local weather girls, either. Geogre 13:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAbstain - read a bit more and don't feel informed enough anymore to decide. Karol 13:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)- Keep per evidence provided, as much as I hate conservative radio talk show hosts. --Unfocused 14:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable and published extreme right wing loony. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rangerdude's evidence. Right wing hackery is irrelevant. Scimitar 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Radio program plus book plus political efforts make him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 17:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable and significant. Joebwan 18:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn. --W(t) 21:22, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- keep please as per randerdude Yuckfoo 23:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BIO. JamesBurns 10:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why do you cite WP:BIO for deletion if he meets 3 of the categories there? Rangerdude 17:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.