Fort Towson

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). California: Southern California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance). U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Hispanic and Latino / Mexican-Americans Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Hispanic and Latino Americans task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Mexican-Americans task force (assessed as Low-importance).

this deletion seems to be improper.

1. The Gun Owners of America is not some "random interest group". It's a notable organization with a Wikipedia article
2. His voting record is certainly encyclopedic. Of course, congressmembers vote hundreds of times per year, so not all votes would be notable and encyclopedic, but votes on major legislation on hot button issues is certainly encyclopedic.

Where is Matt? (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many interest groups for all kinds of issues. We don't typically include these types of scorecards unless an independent source has covered them. For instance, if a newspaper article mentioned a particular scorecard or ranking for a member of Congress. And as for votes, it's not for us to decide what qualifies as "major legislation" or "hot button issues." Because members of Congress take so many votes, we must rely on coverage in independent sources to let us know which votes are notable. Again, if a newspaper or another independent source of similar quality covers a politician's particular vote on an issue, that's a sign that's it is noteworthy to include here. But a roll call vote isn't enough. Marquardtika (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing the General notability guideline requiring independent sources to establish notability for an article with editorial content decisions. Obviously the subject of this biography passes notability with WP:POLITICIAN.

If the information presented passes verifyability, and it is deemed important, then it belongs in the article. And yes, it is for us [Wikipedians] to decide what qualifies as "major legislation" or "hot button issues." Wikipedia has an article called Gun violence in the United States, so Garcia's position on this issue is certainly notable. Where is Matt? (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is different than noteworthiness. Yes, of course Garcia is notable. But everything he does isn't noteworthy. We rely on coverage in independent sources to establish WP:DUEWEIGHT. Whether or not someone or something (such as gun violence) has a Wikipedia article isn't relevant. What's relevant is what independent sources say about an article subject in relation to any particular issue. If Garcia's views on guns are noteworthy, they will have been covered in independent sourcing. Marquardtika (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- I was searching for the word "noteworthiness".

The references that were in the paragraph in question are independent of the subject of this article, and that's what counts in making sure we are compliant with WP:DUEWEIGHT. Where is Matt? (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources here are gunowners.org and a roll call vote in the U.S. House. Neither is an adequate source. Surely independent and reliable sources have covered his record--we need to find and use those. Marquardtika (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think they are inadequate, but if you don't like them, we can add the template {{Better source needed}}. The sources referenced have not been deprecated, and are not WP:PRIMARY to the subject of this bio article. Where is Matt? (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not being deprecated isn't the standard for inclusion. If you don't believe me that these aren't the types of standalone sources that we use to build articles for members of Congress, I suggest posting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics to get some more feedback. Marquardtika (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you cannot point to anything showing that the sources cannot be used, I'm inclined to re-insert the paragraph with the template {{Better source needed}} to let editors find better sources. If there is no policy against using these sources, there is no reason to suppress useful verifiable encyclopedic information. Where is Matt? (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I've disputed the content, so the responsibility for achieving consensus rests on you, the one seeking to include disputed material. Marquardtika (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should Mike Garcia's position on guns be included in the article based on the known references?

• Gun Owners of America's 2020 rating of him
• Gun Owners of America's 2022 rating of him
• his vote on the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

For the context, see this paragraph deleted pending consensus Where is Matt? (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you can find sources that go more in depth on Garcia's position on gun control. The ratings and voting record here may be important to some readers, but it is difficult to judge how important they are to Garcia's life and career as a whole. Senorangel (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We go with the references we have. It has already been acknowledged that the references we have are not in the top tier. The question is: are the references we have sufficient for inclusion (with a possibility of adding the {{better source needed}} template). There is no question about the validity of the references, and the references are WP:SECONDARY to the subject of the biography, albeit not WP:SECONDARY to the information they convey. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Specific text to be added or removed: From 2009 to 2018, Garcia worked as a business development manager at Raytheon Intelligence, Information and Services, one of four business segments of Raytheon.

This should say: From 2009 to 2019, Garcia worked as a Senior Program Director and VP of Business Development at Raytheon’s Space and Airborne Systems business unit.

• Reason for the change: He worked at Raytheon through 2019, and in a different role and unit than what is currently listed

• References supporting change:

https://www.electmikegarcia.com/who-is-mike-garcia-chapter-5-the-businessman/ https://signalscv.com/2019/04/saugus-resident-declares-congressional-bid/ 67.161.247.150 (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]