Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Evans (humanitarian)

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 keep. The Bushranger One ping only 08:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Evans (humanitarian)[edit]

Hugh Evans (humanitarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio of non-notable person per WP:NN, WP:BIO, WP:BLP. After significant cleanup of sources that were neither reliable, third-party, nor multiple, the subject clearly lacks notability. While the subject won an assumedly notable award, not every recipient is necessarily notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. While objectively well-accomplished at a young age, the subject lacks encyclopedic notability. Least of all, he hasn't been established as a particularly notable humanitarian in his field by any reliable peer or media coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 05:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable person per WP:NN, WP:BIO, WP:BLP. While Evans has assumed a Young Australian of the Year Award, that is not notable in itself, as many people have achieved that award and do not have wikipedia entries. And those are interviews (those references that ConcernedVancouverite cited - not actual stories about Evans. Domenico.y (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added additional reliable source citations regarding his involvement with the Global Poverty Project. The subject seems to be well above WP:GNG criteria for notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Poverty Project was deleted, as this was not notable. ConcernedVancouverite's statement is false. Whatever I choose to nominate or deletion, ConcernedVancouverite fights hard for the article to be kept. It is a case of "I say white, ConcernedVancouverite says black." Is ConcernedVancouverite's interactions with me banned for bullying and general spitefulness? Who do I speak to to enforce this? Domenico.y (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

  • Comment The article was resisted for 'generating a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached'. It's not a matter of votes anyway, the editors inform us.

The Global Poverty Project page looks much better now with references and citations. Good work, ConcernedVancouverite. The Hugh Evans article is better referenced as well and is much more notable than 7 days ago, so I vote * Keep for the Hugh Evans article. How do I change my vote? How do you strike out the delete text please? Domenico.y (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

  • Keep Google news archive search for his name and the word "humanitarian". [6] The first result is here. [7] Speaks a lot about him, and his achievements, and links to the television interview done with him. Reliable sources exist covering him in detail, and not just because of that one organization. Others have found reliable sources also. Dream Focus 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, including but not limited to: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many of the sources are non-ondependent PR-based. I view this withthe same skepticism as junior league athletes, and I consider the snews ources, respectable though they may be considered, as engaging in sentimental human interest journalism typical of tabloids. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DGG, could you please clarify which of the currently cited sources in the article you view as non-independent? Looking over them it appears that many are independent. Perhaps you could delete those you feel are non-independent so we can look at a cleaner version of the article to decide? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I judge the independence by the tone: they are based on his PR, as is this article. Agreed, its a matter of judgment, not proof. Let me ask, if this is not an attempt at PR, why the several overlapping articles here with essentially the same content.? DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DGG, could you be more specific which articles you feel are overlapping? Prior to !voting on this AfD I did my WP:BEFORE research and turned up numerous articles. Since the nomination stated that there were, "neither reliable, third-party, nor multiple" sources I went ahead and added them. If you feel some of them are non-independent or non-reliable, please do let us know which specific ones and/or remove them from the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:01, 9 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hugh_Evans_(humanitarian)&oldid=1069652582"