Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hiller

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hiller

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Michael Hiller (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)

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY or WP:ANYBIO. The article appears to be well-referenced, but most of the references aren't about the subject, merely mentioning him in passing. ubiquity (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1 No User editable profile. Yes Just for verifying his own name, yes. No No, it doesn't say much. ✘ No
2 ? Appears to be offline version of first source. ? Unfamiliar with source. No It is a directory, no significant coverage. ✘ No
3 Yes No apparent affiliation. ? Unfamiliar with author. No Mentioned once. ✘ No
4 Yes No apparent affiliation. ~ Looks like a legitimate source, the story is filed under "Q&A" though, which leads me to suspect it is more interview-based. ~ He appears to be the main topic of coverage, putting to partially due to potential interview-based approach (full text behind a paywall). ~ Partial
5 Yes No apparent affiliation. No Title clearly takes sides. ~ It is an interview. ✘ No
6 No Description indicates affiliation. No YouTube video by affiliated group. Yes By virtue of being a video of him. ✘ No
7 Yes No apparent affiliation. Yes No reason to doubt reliability. ~ Main focus is the rally, however, Hiller appears to be heading the rally so it does cover him, but only in relation to the rally. ~ Partial
8 Yes No apparent affiliation. Yes No reason to doubt reliability. Yes Quotes him extensively, although the girl and her case is the main topic of coverage the quotation is extensive enough to warrant significant coverage. ✔ Yes
9 Yes Similar to number 8. Yes Similar to number 8. Yes Similar to number 8. ✔ Yes
10 ? It's Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. No Wikipedia is not a reliable source. No Does not mention "Hiller". ✘ No
11 ~ Clearly aligned with the aforementioned case due to nature of publication. ? Staff writer for unfamiliar publication. No Transcludes self-published biography, note also source 33. ✘ No
12 Yes It's Reuters. Yes It's Reuters. No Single quote, single mention, it's about the decision in the aforementioned case. ✘ No
13 Yes No reason to doubt independence. ~ Forbes is generally considered reliable, however, reliance on tweets, while now widespread, is a bit questionable. ~ Forbes transcludes some of Hiller's tweets about the case but doesn't mention him other than that. ~ Partial
14 Yes Official transcript. Yes Official transcript. No By virtue of the case, his oral arguments are published, this is an official transcript, it does not give weight to them. ✘ No
15 Yes No reason to doubt independence. ~ It is filed under "Analysis" and described as an opinion piece. ? I can only read the first few words, the rest is paywalled. ? Unknown
16 Yes No apparent affiliation. ? Unfamiliar with publication. ~ Borderline, it gives a few quotes. ? Unknown
17 Yes New York Times. Yes New York Times. Yes A few quotes, still not the primary topic, but it mentions multiple case work so yes. ✔ Yes
18 ? Unable to access my JSTOR account at this moment. ? Unable to access my JSTOR account at this moment. ? Unable to access my JSTOR account at this moment. ? Unknown
19 Yes No reason to doubt independence. ? Unfamiliar with publication. No Doesn't mention him at all. Mentions Community United, the uploader of the cited YouTube video. ✘ No
20 Yes No reason to doubt independence. Yes Curbed is usually blog-based but this appears to be not user-generated. Yes Quotes him several times. ✔ Yes
21 Yes Likely, WSJ. Yes Likely, WSJ. ? Paywalled. ? Unknown
22 Yes No apparent affiliation, local publication though. ? Unfamiliar with publication, odd that it is published on ISSU. Yes He is the primary topic of coverage. ? Unknown
23 ? Op-ed. No Op-ed. No Single mention. ✘ No
24 ? Chummy wording and unfamiliarity with publication raises an eyebrow. ? Unfamiliar with publication. Yes He appears to be one of the primary topics covered. ? Unknown
25 Yes Reuters. Yes Reuters. ~ Ehh, single quote again. ~ Partial
26 Yes No reason to doubt independence. ? Unfamiliar with publication. Yes Several quotes, still not primary topic of coverage. ? Unknown
27 Yes Official transcript. Yes Official transcript. No By virtue of him being on a case transcript sites will document it, doesn't add weight or significance as it is autogenerated coverage. ✘ No
28 Yes See above. Yes See above. No See above. ✘ No
29 Yes See above. Yes See above. No See above. ✘ No
30 Yes See above. Yes See above. No See above. ✘ No
31 No Appears to be profile which subject can edit. ~ For basic details, yes, but as an advert it will have flaws in areas. Yes By virtue of its lack of independence. ✘ No
32 ? Bare link, no parameters given. ? Bare link, no parameters given. No Appears to be simply a directory. ✘ No
33 ? 404, please note that the title is identical to number 11. ? 404, please note that the title is identical to number 11. ? 404, please note that the title is identical to number 11. ? Unknown
34 ? Poorly designed website, obscure activist group, notes award, potential client? ~ That they gave him an award? Yes. Anything else? No. No Mentioned once. ✘ No
35 Yes No apparent affiliation. ? Unfamiliar with publication. No Mentioned once. ✘ No
36 Identical to source 5, please name the reference and invoke it. Identical to source 5, please name the reference and invoke it. Identical to source 5, please name the reference and invoke it. ? Unknown
37 Identical to source 8, please name the reference and invoke it. Identical to source 8, please name the reference and invoke it. Identical to source 8, please name the reference and invoke it. ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Reversed !vote.
Comment: amazing work, SITH. I'm still not convinced, though. Taking the article paragraph by paragraph, I see:
1. Somewhat promotional. "Protector of the Little Guy", indeed.
2. Says he founded his own firm. In most cases this is not notable, some people do it because they can't get into an already existing good firm. The entire rest of the pp is about someone else. I do not have a WP article. Can I get one by saying I was inspired by Alan Turing?
3. Entire pp is about a case-not-covered-by-WP, not Hiller.
4. Lots of this pp is not about the subject; what is about the subject is promotional. Of the 10 references, SITH's analysis shows only two clearly valid ones, and even they are not about the subject himself.
5. Seems promotional. No valid refs according to SITH's analysis.
The rest of the article is about his personal life, which doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Yes, he got a good degree from a good law school, but so did my brother, my sister, my dad and my son (none in WP). Because I am familiar with lawyers, I know that being named Superlawyer is not necessarily an indicator of notability (again, my brother, sister, dad and HIS brother got this -- my son didn't, but he's quit law to become a Hollywood screenwriter). He taught law at John Jay but nothing in the article says that was notable. He wrote two screenplays, neither was filmed, and one lost three rounds before the end of a contest (which means his name does not appear in the WP article he references). I'm sorry, I'm just not impressed. The article seems like a vanity piece to me, without any of the real meat of notability. ubiquity (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ubiquity, thanks! I've been mulling this one over and I think I may have been a bit hasty in deciding on keep from the analysis. The main delete argument would come from ANYBIO in conjunction with BLP1E or NOTINHERITED. I'll take a look at the sources again and weigh it up and update accordingly. For now I've just withdrawn my !vote. SITH (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the table, and the promotional/COI nature of the article. Basically, notability here would be marginal at best, with a following wind and a few nice glasses of port. There's really nothing to make this guy notable, just a lot of fluff whipped up to look impressive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2019 (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/Michael_Hiller&oldid=929242647"