Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. Hudnall

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Hudnall

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seem to be two sources, both of which are primary and associated with the subject — and none of which are any longer live. Carl Fredrik^talk 22:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found this and this, which support some of the claims about the Harsh Realm lawsuit. This from Comic Book Resources covers them in connection to Harsh Realm. I found this, but can't view it due to an internet filter, so I'm not sure if it's reliable or not. This article from CBR and this one from Comics Beat talk about him outside of the HR work. I also found these two interviews. These took less than 9 minutes to find. I'm sure there are more available. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This notes that he was asking people to give Trump a change, this says he started working for Breitbart ? DS (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so add those sources. What you are saying otherwise is that the article is currently insufficient, but can be rescued. That still means it should be deleted. Carl Fredrik^talk 10:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: - There is no WP:DEADLINE. I have found sources that demonstrate notability, so deletion is not the correct action. Don't be so WP:IMPATIENT. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: — WP:the deadline is now. Deletion is not only about notability, but about whether the article actually stands up to scrutiny, for example see WP:BLPPROD

For unsourced articles about living persons created after 18 March 2010, adding {{subst:prod blp}} will propose the BLP for deletion. If sources are not added within 10 days, the article may be deleted.

Every second we allow a CV-type promotional article to stay on WP is a second that it decreases the overall quality of WP. Carl Fredrik^talk 13:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added all these sources to the article as external links. BLPROD didn't and doesn't apply, which I'm guessing is why you didn't use it first. The essay you linked is primarily about false information, not unsourced information. Please clarify which of the Reasons for deletion you think applies here. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't apply, that is only through a formality, it still applies in essence (the 2010 cut-off is arbitrary). No, the reason is I wasn't aware of it, since I do not tend to edit biographies. EL:s do not increase the standard of the content, and do not exclude it from being deleted.

Wikipedia draws no line between unsourced and false information. If no-one is willing to source the information it may as well be false — and keeping unsourced information in the encyclopedia is akin to allowing falsehoods per WP:VERIFY.

You have the following reasons WP:G11, WP:DEL4 & WP:DEL9 Carl Fredrik^talk 13:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD doesn't apply because it's for articles that "contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise)".

G11 (pages that are exclusively promotional) and and DEL4 are jokes, right? What about this page seems promotional to you?

To DEL9, the solution is to remove the unsourced material, not delete the whole article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like an unapologetic summary of his work-life, like a CV. Only two statements are actually sourced in the article. The one that he has been sued, and the one that he has received some award. None of them support the first sentence of the article.

So, what that means is that BLPPROD applies, because there are essentially nothing but passing mentions used as sources, and what you seem to have left out:

To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography.

That he is involved in a law-suit is not exactly a statement about him, (even though the source includes other information, but it isn't used to support that).

I'm surprised we allow so horrible articles to go unsourced, just because they could be sourced. If nothing else I will remove all unsourced material. Carl Fredrik^talk 14:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have understood the lawsuit. He wasn't sued. He did the suing. Because he wasn't credited as creating something. The whole lawsuit was about Hudnall and his work. You're calling that a passing mention? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Argento Surfer. BOZ (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional sources. Artw (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.