Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donnie Hogan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Hogan

[edit]
Donnie Hogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth support. The majority of references are about his arrest and subsequent legal action against him or his new book. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Hogan is a strong medical marijuana advocate,,,strong advocate for disabled americans, and strong advocate for ankylosing spondylitis,,,just becuase his sister is famous is irrevelant!!!! there is more than enough evidence to support this, Please research the subject before judging! Mickiray2004 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004 — Note to closing admin: Mickiray2004 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
  • Comment - Being a strong advocate for any cause is not a reason for inclusion into Wikipedia. Please review WP:N and WP:BIO. Unfortunately, the coverage about the individual is trivial in nature and fails to provide in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIf your arguement is true then pages like Martin Luther King, Maalcom X, Rosa Parks, Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela and Ghandi should be removed. All of those entries fought against discrimination and civil rights. Please explain what is trivial and what needs to be fixed. There are facts about this person tht cannot be denied. It is documented in four books, several magazine articles, countless online outlets and the fact that he is attempting to further his efforts of advocacy by producing the documentary Disabled in America proves that his intentions should not be considerd trivial. It should be noted that there is enough evidence to suffice the fact that Donnie Hogan is a strong advocate for the disease Ankylosing Spondylitis, He advocates for rights of disabled Americans.
He has been a notable voice in the battle for legalized marijuana, primarily in the state of Michigan where several dispensaries were raided by the DEA statewide. Hogan's case was strongly followed by media outlets and became a hot topic on all marijuana online forums. Hogan attended rallies statewide in the hopes to educate the public about the medical benefits. The fact his case was dismissed implies that he is innocent and it should be treated as such. Medical marijuana is a big issue in the current day and his part in the movement stresses the notability rights required of this page. His volunteer work should be the focus. Medical Marijuana is a larrge part of our current events. His case was a high profile case during the year 2012 and it greatly affected the marijuana movement sparking rallies, protests and should be considered a part of history as it is as such.
He is the brother of Anna Nicole Smith and was a part of the media backlash that followed her death. Hogan was interviewed several times but only recently released the fact that he suffers from the disease Ankylosing Spondylitis. He has primialy remained very private about until recently. There is evidence that his sister suffered from an autoimmune disease as well. It is well documented they are related. Donnie Hogan is his own person and should not be compared to others. This page focuses on his life, the fact he has a famous relative does not mean more than his sister was a part of Donnie Hogan's life and they shared certain moments and he was interviewed after her death this information should be added as it is a part of history,the truth and it should be noted,,,,, but it does not need to be the main focus of the page, nor was the intention of the page when created.01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiray2004 (talk • contribs)
Comment - Martin Luther King, Maalcom X, Rosa Parks, Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela are included because they are notable per Wikipedia standards not because they were advocates. There is is more than adequate support for these individuals and this is what is missing this article's subject. reddogsix (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please explain how much notability is enough. Why is there a comparison? Some will move a mountain to save a million while others will move a pebble to save just one. I believe the fact that the name has been published in several media outlets, the fact the name is associated with events that have been a part of history is what is required.
Is he only being compared to his famous sister? There are other relatives of her listed here that have done less, why are they not being questionedMickiray2004 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004[reply]
Comment - You do not seem to understand the concept of notability. Please read WP:N, specifically WP:GNG. There is no comparison to other articles, other articles have no bearing on this one. reddogsix (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There may be material about him on the web, but a lot of it are blog postings and other sites not deemed to be reliable, secondary sources. What's needed is significant coverage in national mainstream press, magazines, books - see the guidelines for a more thorough explanation.
There's a set of tools at the top of the page to check for reliable sources. Of those, NYT has nothing; of the 10 found from this query, only about half of those could be used as sources; there are three at HighBeam - but none are applicable, a newspaper query bring 1 N/A article, and a regular search on google news turns up 2 articles that are not applicable. There are records that come up from this the first query, but they are very few that are applicable or from a reliable source.
When I look at his areas of interest in "Donnie Hogan" "Ankylosing Spondylitis" OR marijuana, there may be some content from reliable secondary sources for this Donnie Hogan, but it would take some weeding thorugh to identify enough sources, and I didn't find a national journalistic source. There does not appear to be enough to establish notability. There also is no mention of how he may have contributed to his causes in a significant way. Lastly, the article as it is right now, it is hard to determine if there is notability because the content is not generally not cited - and one of the three sources is a blog.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Thank you. Okay, so what is needed is the links to the articles from Us weekly, national enquirer, OK magazine, Publisher Weekly, clips from his appearances on Inside Edition, German television, Extra, Montel Williams?
Links to more media publications produced nationally say, Transcripts from MSNBC live and Fox news?
Newspapers clippings from the rallies and protests? More photos with credible sources. Uploaded photos provided by him with federally issued copyrights with his notarized permission to use? There is also several of proofs of medical records and copies of court proceedings not only regarding the medical marijuana issue but the issues stemmed from his sister's death.
There are newspaper clippings of the advocacy of Ankylosing Spondylitis and the Disabled in America project but the filming of the show is still on going.
Could this just be a question of creating a page in the wrong category and it needs to be recreated in a different category of this site.50.200.95.98 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004[reply]
Comment - As has been pointed in prior comments, the significance of coverage and the trivial nature of the coverage does not support inclusion into a Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The continued same reply does not answer of new the questions. Your opinion has also been noted. But your opinion is also trival in my opinion.
SISTER DONNA HOGAN ALSO LISTED, Keep page There is another sibling of Anna Nicole Smith has been listed and she is only known for writing a book about Anna Nicole Smith. She has not done anything other than publish one book and has way far less information. Why is her page allowed and Donnie Hogan's is questioned. Donnie Hogan has done things in his own right and if it is trivial, yet no one has explained the reasons why they feel so, so be it, it is the truth.
Again I ask, does this need to be subject matter need to be re-categorized or changed to be allowed? 19:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiray2004 (talk • contribs)
Comment - Do you really think referring to my comments as trivial will entice me to help you? The comment verges on WP:UNCIVIL. No one has talked about the actions of the subject as being trivial, the comment is, "the support for the article is trivial."
The existence of another article has no bearing on this article - other stuff exists. Your question relating to a different cat - the issue is not the cat, it is the substance and support of the article. Once again, the issue is support for the article does not meet the criteria to support WP:NOTABILITY. reddogsix (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDo you really think me questioning your motives is not relevant? I am not asking you specifically for help. Your motives are clear. I am asking others who have commented on this page. Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiray2004 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did not see you questioning my motives. Please read WP:AGF before continuing your comments.reddogsix (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure that you're reading the guidelines. Looking at WP:GNG, the key points are
  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
So, if you just take the three top items together - what is needed is: significant coverage from mainstream newspapers, magazines, and/or books.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will continue to work on these articles, I know where they exist and where to look. He has been interviewed by four books, I will add those links, I will locat the transcripts from Msnbc and iterviews from Rita Crosby. I will get the transcript to the Montel Williams Show and the links to he appearanaces on Inside Edition and Extra. I will get the links to the media coverage by NBC and Cbs during the marijuana rallies in Michigan. I can find the interviews provided online about Ankylosing SPondylitis. I am willing to make the changes to make the page acceptable.

Mickiray2004 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004[reply]

additional info,,,,,

[clarification needed]

these articles can be added easily and I will find them. Most articles speak for medical marijuana and it is a side note of his sister's relation. The same is also said for AS articles. I am digging into archives for content. Mickiray2004 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)nickiray2004[reply]

A couple of things - just adding more links to the bottom doesn't help much. What needs to be done is show where the content from the article came from, by putting the citations inline with the text. And, if you think that the article should be saved, I personally think it's a good exercise to try - just as long as you understand that it still may be deleted if the article fails to meet the guidelines. For instance - I was just trying to give you a better sense of the issues, I why I voted to Delete. There were also other guidelines mentioned in the comments. If it helps to walk through each of the guidelines in more depth, I am happy to take this conversation to the talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, I also nominated Donna Hogan, an article about his sister (and another half-sibling to Anna Nicole Smith), for deletion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


CommentAs a part of real life, this story will go on regardless of the posting or deletion of this page. I will continue to document the work and when enough is gathered I will hire a trained professional to create the page, so then when it comes time for the inevitable judging we will be prepared. The fact he is advocating in life should be documented. Unfortunately hours of his advocacy work is done privately on Ankylosing Spondylitis outreach lines. These things are done anonymously and he has helped patients through some of the toughest moments of their life, some on the brink of suicide. These things cannot be mentioned publicly.

He tries to avoid being judged strictly on relations. He has rare publicity because the questions always pertain to his sister but he continues to advocate daily for disabled people and is currently filming a documentary about those who discriminate against the disabled. The media will be gathered and continued to be added to this page or the next one that will be created when he meets the guidelines. He still continues filming and I am sure the press will grow. He is currently in negotiations for the airing of the show on Discovery or National Geographic. Life does go on.

I will find someone better equipped to help in the creation of this page. I will continue to gather information. Mickiray2004 (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was an article about legalizing pot in his state or city, that might be appropriate. But, it's an article about legalization of pot generally, around the world. In this case, though, he's not a national presence regarding legalization of pot. I think this would be giving undue weight to any statements that he supports legalization of pot over others that truly are a major presence.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point — Iadmc♫talk  18:57, 15 December 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donnie_Hogan&oldid=1070972707"