Wikipedia

Talk:Dan Patrick (politician)/Archive 1

< Talk:Dan Patrick (politician)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by 1990'sguy in topic External links modified
Archive 1
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Rice Thresher editorial linked is an inaccurate personal opinion of a single Rice student and should not be linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.208.99 (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on VfD proposal

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Per WP:BIO the standards for including an article are defined as follows: "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.

By not one but three different measures under WP's biography policy, Patrick constitutes a significant figure that may be included in Wikipedia. The VfD request, premised on the claim that he is not significant enough, is thus frivolous. Rangerdude 07:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Rangerdude is incorrect. Firstly, WP:BIO is not a policy. Secondly, for a person whose very profession is to reach an audiance, 5,000 people is an incredibly low bar to reach. Thirdly, Rangerdude provides no reference that Patrick has even reached that incredibly low bar - he relies on the size of the Houston market in general without any proof of how many people Patrick himself reaches and no figures for the book sales. Johntex 14:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • If it is not a policy, then it is a guideline and as a guideline it says that Patrick's notability is more than sufficient on three different counts. Unlike your unscientific google tests, WP:BIO states agreed upon circulation measures. If 5,000 is too low a bar to meet in your opinion, take it up with WP:BIO and propose changing it. Until then, however, it is what the wikipedia community has agreed to go by as a guideline. Third, your suggestion that Patrick does not reach this audience defies common sense. Houston is one of the top 10 media markets in the country and Patrick has been a broadcaster in two different peak hour programs on two different mediums involving two different widely listened to programs. He is currently the afternoon rush hour host on AM 700 and was previously the sportscaster on the CBS affiliate's evening news. KSEV arbitrons at around 1.8% of the Houston market share, which puts it in the top 20 Houston stations and well above 5,000 daily listeners. Since listeners are highest during "peak hours" (on radio this means the morning and afternoon rush hours) and Patrick's show is during one of those peak hours, it defies basic common sense to assume that he doesn't reach 5,000. Rangerdude 18:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Wrong again. "Guidelines" such as WP:BIO have not been voted on by the Wikipedia community. They are simply an observation of past voting behaviours. It is still up to the vote by editors to decide individual cases. Of course, why would you get that right when you continue to distort my statements? Johntex 20:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The only error is your own. Official wikipedia guidelines are subject to different editing criteria than normal articles because they are accepted as official guidelines by consensus. In order to edit the substance of a guideline you must first propose the change in the discussion page rather than normal article, such as your "google test" article. Per Wikipedia's policy on rules and guidelines, " guidelines have consensual support" "they are not set in stone, but should be applied in most cases" and "may be used in Arbitration." (emphasis added) The same cannot be said of unscientific google tests, which to date is the sole basis for your VfD. And seeing as you are the one who persisted in accusing me of portraying guidelines as policy long after I had repeatedly acknowledged they were guidelines, I think it is safe to say that you have little ground to stand on in accusing others of distorting words. I will note for the time being though that you persist in refusing to address any of the points I have raised regarding Patrick's notability and market share as it relates to WP:BIO. At the same time you provide virtually no substantial justification for your VfD request beyond a distorted "google test" which, as I have shown through several alternative google tests on the same subject, appears to have been designed to understate Patrick's significance. Not that I would expect anything less from you...Rangerdude 03:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)llkj
  • By Wikipedia's standards, as quoted by Rangerdude, "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" is reaching a bit. I'd like to see examples of this. I've barely ever heard of the guy. A simple total of his book sales would go a long way towards verifying the credibility of his bio page. As far as being a "well known entertainment figure," just being on TV or having a radio show in the top 20 stations in Houston may not be enough. There are quite a few TV anchors without Wikipages. Snowfire51 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Patrick is a broadcaster, he is a state senator, he is an author, etc. He meets the standards. That discussion was killed years ago. --Getaway 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, if it's been settled, fine. It's coming back up now because the disambig page for the broadcaster and politician is now up. Snowfire51 22:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This article sounds like an advertisement for the guy. Didn't he reportedly get fired from 950 KPRC (Clearchannel)? If his biography and radio history is not going to contain a chronological account of his radio career from a NPOV then this article should be deleted. It appears that only his radio station edits or cares about this page.--Kibbled bits (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I said that a few months ago when an editor, without discussing it with anyone, flipped the main Dan Patrick page from the sportscaster to a disambig page. It was quickly reversed, since this DP's notability is questionable at best. If you want to nominate the page for deletion, go right ahead. It doesn't seem to have ever really been discussed before, the above discussions seem to be all talk and no interaction. Snowfire51 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

His last name was originally Goeb and he used Patrick as his radio name. I don't know if anyone feels this is relevant, but I wanted to put it out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.19.20 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with articles on figures like this AKA Marking for Deletion

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Heck the problem with articles of obscure figures like this is threefold IMHO. 1) Causes confusion with other popular figures, 2) Normally provides only an outlet for marketing a product or person & 3) there are few quality sources for updating information.

As such most of the information on this page is baseless (few references). That being said it's generally accurate but far from a NPOV. I have lived in Houston my whole life and have listened to this guy off and on and most people do not even know of him in the city (if you say do you know Dan Patrick) they say: "The ESPN guy"? I tried this with a conservative friend of mine who also listens to AM radio.

Therefore I am going to recommend this article for deletion. These things can be quite difficult as this particular person is good at getting hordes off people to show up for him on notice. --Kibbled bits (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to delete the article was defeated

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The attempt to have the article deleted by a political opponent of Dan Patrick was defeated. This article about Dan Patrick easily meets notability on two separate grounds: (1) Texas state politician and (2) well-known businessman in the broadcasting business (owns two radio stations in two large markets, Houston and Dallas). All votes were for keep except the person who nominated it.--InaMaka (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the need to specify that this AfD was from "a political opponent of Dan Patrick"? Is that verifiable somewhere, or are you just assuming? Redrocket (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL yes, I am a political opponent. You crack me up InaMaka. Is he so desperate for Martyrdom that he will accuse me of being a political opponent? I only wish I had that much time & money to waste to run for congress. LOL --Kibbled bits (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You do realize, of course, that you were completely defeated. Also, you realize that I do not believe that you are running for office--well, apparently not.--InaMaka (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dan Patrick (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dan Patrick (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Success! Two links are the same, and the specific election is not specified, though. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I've just updated based on the page being moved to: http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/index.htm
I'll recheck (or someone else can) to make sure the specific election pages are stable. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dan Patrick (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dan Patrick (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The first link did not work, but the second was successful. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Patrick_(politician)/Archive_1&oldid=1210748063"