Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Hildebrand

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The result was Withdrawn.. Notability concerns by me and other users addressed by Jenks24 per the Walkley Award high commednation. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hildebrand

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Contested PROD. News reporter that does not seem to meet the notability criteria for living persons. I was unable to find in-depth information on the individual in independent sources. Only social media places and blogs turned up. A Google News search shows a few stories he wrote. Current sources are his twitter account and a show to which he contributes. Recently, canvassing to "improve" the article (i.e. fabricating details) has appeared on the reporter's Twitter page, so the page has been protected. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes he writes articles for a major newspaper but that does not make him notable. There is insufficient coverage about him as subject to pass WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find any independent sources to support notability. The subject is also using social media to campaign for the article to be kept. ShipFan (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You know, I Jethrobot, it seems to me (based on the Twitter conversations) that you're being a complete arse about this, doing it for completely illegitimate reasons. However, I do agree that Joe Hildebrand doesn't seem to be notable enough. A quick Google search doesn't reveal very much that could be used encyclopædically. --Sauronjim (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, he was also being a complete arse… maybe your retaliation was warranted. --Sauronjim (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been trying to explain to him and his followers that he needs to be discussed in third-party reliable sources. That's all. I haven't been canvassing people to delete. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable despite the subject's own actions. Lazy reliance on Google searches is a pretty piss-poor way to assess notability. The article needs improving, not deleting. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he's "clearly notable," it'd be nice to see some sources to back up Hildebrand's notability per WP:BLP. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If a Google search isn't a reliable way to assess notability, then could someone provide an alternate source that proves he is notable? --Sauronjim (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my !vote below. Jenks24 (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. ShipFan (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator I have been contacted on Twitter by many of Hildebrand's followers requesting that I remove or keep the subject's page. Through twitter, I have invited such users into the discussion to provide a case or sources for why the article should be kept, noting policies where relevant such as WP:BLP and WP:NOTPROMO. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Joe Hildebrand is renown for using sarcasm and absurdist puns in his column, so it comes to no surprise that people are making mischief with his Wikipedia entry. He's a journalist for the Daily Telegraph and appears on national television on the ABC, Sky News, and Channel 9.

Videos here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33ZUGhYUgl8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnh-CMTjCC0 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrA1ZSZfB3k

The page should be cleaned up and stay. I'm *sure* his audience have it in them to promise to not fabricate elements of the entry any further. 202.162.66.2 (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added the above comment from this AfD's discussion page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That the subject is being an idiot on Twitter is irrelevant to the AfD. I can understand why the article was nominated – it's in pretty poor shape, there some excessive BLP vios and it's actually quite hard to search for sources to confirm a journalists notability. For most people, you just use a google news search. Although Hildebrand gets ~1000 hits on gnews, most are articles he has written and no-one wants to wade through 1000 articles in the hope of finding a good ref. As Hildebrand is a News Limited journalist, my solution was to search the Fairfax Media archives to see if he gets any mentions there (and you don't get inundated with articles he's written). He has two mentions in the The Sydney Morning Herald [1] [2], both along the lines of "Daily Telegraph writer says something controversial/humorous". The clincher for me was that Hildebrand received a "High commendation" at the 2004 Walkley Awards, Australia's version of the Pulitzer [3]. In addition, as noted by the IP above, Hildebrand does appear on nationally broadcast programs. Jenks24 (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, the article should probably be indef semi'd (or at least long term). Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. If these sources are put into the article, I'll change my vote to a keep. --Sauronjim (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I've added the Walkley Award info and ref to the article. Jenks24 (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad faith nom. 121.45.205.96 (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Due to the Walkley Awards as noted by Jenks24. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Walkley Awards winner, notable enough. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Intent to withdraw from nominator per the Walkley commendation (nice find, Jenks24). I recommend that other editors consider changing their stance to support keeping this article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:03, 19 August 2011 (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.