Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlan Hill (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan Hill[edit]

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

The page should be deleted because the individual is not notable enough. The sources used in the article are: (1) Two Harlan Hill tweets, (2) Three Fox News op-eds or appearances, (3) a Daily Mail article about him, (4) An article in the Herald Sun which I can't access, (5) A Hollywood Reporter article where one interviewee mentions him once while spitballing a list of people, (6) Two rubbish Mediaite articles about him (one brief article that just summarizes what he said in a Fox appearance, and one poorly written article that primarily recites Hill tweeting about a potential Senate run). I tried to find any mention of Harlan Hill in the kinds of reliable sources that are typically used for politicians and pundits, and came up short. The only thing I could find was coverage by reliable sources of an episode where Donald Trump Jr. retweeted something that Hill said. Hill was only mentioned in passing in those articles. By the way, this page was deleted in 2015, see the discussion here[1]. In short, the reasons for deletion were that the page was self-promotion and there was insufficient sourcing. The 2017 version of the page has more sources, but the quality and quantity of sourcing is still way below what it should be for a notable individual, and having tried to find some myself, I can confirm that there is a dearth of reliable sources to add to this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to voice my strong suspicion that the account 'Patriot154' is Hill himself or someone with close ties to him. It's a two-month old account that has only edited this page (and done so extensively), with the exception of one short edit on another page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, that's interesting. I hadn't check the edit history. (Although when I have that sort of suspicion, I generally suspect not only the subject, but fans, family, and political supporters of the subject.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the sockpuppet investigators to look into it. The old Harlan Hill article had three sockpuppets, and they were all adding similar content as the 'patriot154' account. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tagging all the editors who were involved the first time around (minus the sockpuppet accounts): MelanieN E.M.Gregory Non-dropframe reddogsix SpeedDemon520 Joseph2302 SwisterTwister Johnpacklambert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no recommendation about whether to keep or delete the current article. I will just say that I have evaluated whether it qualifies for G4 speedy deletion, and it does not. I compared it to the article I deleted in 2015, and it is quite different. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (change my iVote from)~~Keep~~ I was pinged to come here because I iVoted at the previous AfD. I iVoted to delete back then, but that was two years ago, and it's been quite a two years for this political strategist/commentator. (Well, it's been quite a two years for Americans who follow politics. period.) Hill has had a lot of media exposure, and gotten a lot of coverage in those two years. ~~So while he was not back then, I have to say that he is notable now.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A profile of him ~~form 1016~~ from 2016, (yeah, I know it's the Daily Mail,) 'Millennial TV personality': Meet the 25-year-old bow tie-wearing, Trump-supporting DEMOCRAT driving Nine's U.S. election coverage with Karl Stefanovic and Laurie Oakes, [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Daily Mail article, if anything, reflects poorly on the state of the article, since it's the only source that gives coverage of reasonable length to this individual. If this article is going to be kept, the Daily Mail piece, along with Harlan's tweets, the newly added Inquisitr piece and other non-RS will be removed on day one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a profile is a profile even in the Daily Mail. But it's not a great profile. Revisiting this, I did a more thorough search. He certainly has been the subject of a series of minor media flurries. Has been written up as a likely candidate for promotion to gigs on CNN and other media. And quoted, with short descriptors. However, I cannot find anything dispositive in the way of WP:SIGCOV coverage (even that Daily Mail profile is very brief), so I have to say that it is, at best, WP:TOOSOON and agree with Nom on Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHe is a long time pundit on highly rated, national television. Based on YouTube search and an archive.org search, he has been on cable television hundreds and hundreds of times. Is also an advisor and visible spokesman for the President of the United States. Patriot154 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)— Patriot154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can anyone source "advisor" to President assertion?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On every show he does now, they list it as his title. Ffirst Google search result I found on Fox Business Network: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5561394648001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot154 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that you're so familiar with him that you can confidently declare what his chyron says "on every show he does now", suggesting both that you watch all his appearances and over such a long period that you can pinpoint when the chyron descriptions changed. Hmmm...Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is true I have been following harlan for over a year, from when we was first on DML news, but I would not be able to pin point the time his change occurred. If you watch fox, you will see harlan. Look to his Facebook or twitter for more videos and appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot154 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot154, The thing is, media generally invite commentators to compose their own little min-bio used with articles and appearances, granted, editors or producers will sometimes work with you on the wording, but such tag lines are not enough to source the info on WP:BIO. What we need is an article, preferably 2 separate articles, published in WP:RS that describe Hill's position as an advisor to the President (essential before we can describe anyone as a "presidential advisor). And we also need WP:SIGCOV of this man and his career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. Mini-bios are usually self-authored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as notability is not inherited, and a few mini-bios aren't enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. NotInherited is NotPolicy, its an essay. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:50, 28 September 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.