Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Grant Hay

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Grant Hay[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable person. He is a co-founder of non-notable organizations and a producer of non-notable web films. He is also described as an expert legal advisor, but the claim is unsourced and the article does not describe any legal education. There is lots of name dropping about his relatives and alleged legal clients, but WP:NOTINHERITED. MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: The article was speedy-deleted per A7, but was restored at the request of the author, who promised to add sources demonstrating notability. I was not involved in the speedy deletion but was asked by the deleting/restoring administrator to take a look at the case. The sources the author intended to add, and my evaluation of them, are listed here. ~~In the 10 days since the article was restored, the author has not actually made any changes to it;~~ (Update: the author, AlphaProxy, has now added several additional sources.) In my opinion the proposed new sources would not have made the subject notable in any case. I also raised a question at the author's talk page about a possible conflict of interest, which they have not responded to. --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article includes material about the subject's schooling and career, none of which are unusual or significant. The subject fails our notability guidelines, which state that the subject must have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. — Diannaa (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article in favor of the author's contest of speedy-deletion with the editor(s) here, who agreed to restore the article at the request of the author who has added the editor's recommended Reliable Sources to the article in accordance with our notability guidelines to improve the article. - AlphaProxy (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of these sourced and the accompanying information suggest any actual context for the notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name dropping would be great to provide full detail to a biography of an independently notable person. But in this case it seems to be used to prove notability. The information that could be used to support an actual claim of notability are:

Grant Hay is an expert in Australian property law, land subdivison, local government and government compulsory acquisitions in Australia. He has more than ten years experience instructing and briefing senior legal counsel in Victoria
He is ... acting Chair of The New Republicans and 'Renew Australia' Charter
He is the founder and President of the Connected TV Marketing Association
He is ... the founding board member of Studio Australia

The claims relating to instructing barristers is particularly interesting to me, because I see no evidence of a law degree or licence to practice law. For the remainder of the claims, I do not see how any of them make him notable enough for a biography. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect: The article to his grandfather Peter Grant Hay an independently notable person related to the subject and await in-depth coverage from a variety of reliable sources from contributors to support a new article on the subject; the authority of his legal claim, his political role and career activities in broadcasting and production, which appear to be new and, if and when they become notable include them in a full biography. - AlphaProxy (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaProxy: Right now you have two bolded !votes on this page: the "keep" above and the "redirect" here. But you are only allowed to !vote once. Could you please strike out one or the other so that the closing administrator knows what you are recommending? (I'm guessing you meant to strike out the other "keep" as well but I would rather not put words in your mouth.) Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Apologies to all for being off-wiki for some time.) I've just done another search through Google for "James Grant Hay". I was presented with six and a half pages, but also went on into the other ten pages of 'similar' entries that Google offered. Sorry, but I can see nothing in those entries to support an article. Notability is usually not inherited - however, in a case like Prince George, his ancestry and position in the line of succession ensured that without doing much more than smile, burp and wet nappies he got an article. For the rest of us without inherited titles or the burden of being the children of the POTUS, the notability of relations would only be of encyclopaedic note were we to pass notability ourselves. Peridon (talk) 10:55, 6 June 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.