Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianne Hiles

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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Hiles[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced BLP and unsuccessful political candidate, current two links were severely lacking and are now dead. Current article is an overt political candidate PROMO statement by a WP:SPA. While subject is an AM, the current article at least needs a complete rewrite and hence WP:TNT. WP:BEFORE shows the vast majority of coverage is routine political candidate election coverage and GNG is doubtful. Note a previous PROD declined without obvious reason. Aoziwe (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have edited the article to remove the out of date info and electioneering POV. Hiles has been a refugee advocate for many years before and after standing as a Greens candidate. I have updated one reference and added another source for her AM. I will look for and add more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:ANYBIO #1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." She is a Member of the Order of Australia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have certainly effectively TNTed the article, thanks. Re ANYBIO, okay after the TNTing but given that there has been at least one other !vote of delete the AfD cannot be withdrawn. Please note that some of your new references, at least most of what I can get access to, seem to be minor mentions and are perhaps leaning towards WP:REFBOMBING. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I was aware the references were piling up, and I may do some more work on it, either to add more info from the sources, or to prune them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being inducted into the Order of Australia is a valid notability claim, and RebeccaGreen has done a very creditable job of Heymanning the writing tone and referencing up to a much more keepable standard than they displayed at the time of nomination. Bravo. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if Member of the Order of Australia by itself alone is significant enough as an honour, but that honour together with sources having been improved on, and she may pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i think with OBEs a CBE is deemed to be the significant level so with OAs its probably Officer? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the Canadian equivalent, the Order of Canada, there's no rank-based cutoff as to when it counts as a notability claim and when it doesn't — the OC itself is considered a valid notability claim regardless of rank, and the only inclusion test beyond that is the ability to cite the article to some actual evidence of reliable source coverage. That is, we'll still delete an article about an OC member in the (unlikely but not impossible) event that the Order of Canada citation is the only source we can find for them, but if we can find reasonable evidence of them having received reliable source coverage in media for the work they did to get the honour, then we accept it as a notability claim even at the "member" level. National honour programs don't all work in the exact same way, and don't have exactly the same levels or the same qualifications to get named to them, so there's no one-size-fits-all notability approach that applies the same way to all of them — each country's wikicontingent needs to establish its own consensus about how notability works in relation to their own national honour system. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the UK is concerned, I don't think an OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) is enough, for example, many in this list of people such as career diplomats don't really look notable to me - [1]. Same for those in the military (I'm not even sure of those in the military receiving a CBE). I can't state with great confidence whether this is the same with Australia, personally I would consider a superior honour to be notable. Hzh (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources here. The AM does not qualify for WP:ANYBIO #1, as has been established many, many times. (AO at least, but really AC.) Frickeg (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage of her doesn't really pass WP:GNG, there's a lot of synth and non-significant coverage in the article as it stands, with the only articles on her being the award and her candidacy. The candidacy articles don't really count, either. If the AM doesn't qualify for WP:ANYBIO, then she fails both the only possible SNG along with GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where are the guidelines on which level of national awards constitutes "a well-known and significant award or honor"? Frickeg says that it "has been established many, many times" that AM does not qualify; Bearcat says that "there's no rank-based cutoff" with the Order of Canada. If there are guidelines beyond WP:ANYBIO, I would very much appreciate knowing where they are. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Every single time someone at AfD tries to say "the AM/OAM passes WP:ANYBIO!", it is established that no, actually, it really doesn't, since these awards are given to many many people, many of them worthy but not all of them notable. (In some cases, of course, the article is kept as it passes WP:GNG anyway.) There have been a few attempts at codifying this that have tended to founder, most recently here. Frickeg (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any formal policy document that spells it out, because it's dependent on context. I can confirm that for the Order of Canada, we definitely don't have any comprehensive attempts happening to rush-job every new OC member into Wikipedia the moment the new induction announcements come out — but when an article about an OC member does happen, we check for whether they can be shown to pass WP:GNG or not rather than just automatically accepting the OC announcement itself as the magic notability maker for a person who doesn't have any other sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your replies. What I see at the Talk page you linked to, Frickeg, is that there is no agreed policy, and you said "This whole idea could use formalising because I for one am tired of having to argue that ANYBIO doesn't cover, say, the Medal of the Order of Australia or the Centenary Medal" - which suggests to me that other editors think that it does. And although my Keep vote was based on WP:ANYBIO, I have also provided other references, so it's up to others to decide if they are sufficient for WP:GNG. (I don't know why the candidacy article wouldn't count - News Corp, News.com.au's owner, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and is most definitely independent of the Greens.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider candidacy announcements routine reporting when evaluating GNG, especially so in Australia, where the candidates are rarely independent of the parties they are running for (IE, you tend to vote for the party more than the individual candidate because the candidates tend not to have leeway on making policy as individuals, conscience votes and all that - obviously there are exceptions.) Identifying these sources as routine ties in with our unelected candidates not being presumptively notable guideline. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if there were other sources out there which haven't been considered yet. SportingFlyer talk 21:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with RebeccaGreen and per avove. BurmeseGod (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:GNG. I'm not familiar enough with the context of some of these claims to have a strong opinion. Uninvited Company 21:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recipient of Order of Australia, passes GNG. MurielMary (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AM is not an automatic marker of notability (at a quota of 340 awards per year it can hardly be considerd a "significant" award). Other coverage is routine or unreliable. Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2018 (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.