Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Hirsh (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 no consensus. v/r - T P 08:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hirsh[edit]

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

First AfD ended in no consensus with little participation about three months ago. Lets try again. Borderline at best on notability. I have to lean to delete here, but maybe we can get more participation this time. Safiel (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google turned up several stories about, and interviews with this guy in WP:RS publications in the first couple pages of hits. He seems to have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of stories on the web featuring or interviewing him as a commentator on technology — but that's not the same thing as stories or interviews where he's the subject of the coverage. The latter kind of coverage is what we're after when determining whether there's enough verifiable content about a person to support a Wikipedia article or not, and there isn't a lot of that out there. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion At the very least he can be noted in a couple sentences in his wife's articles. I'malso not convinced he isn't independently notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion One of Canada's leading commentator and broadcaster about technological matters. Has a major nation-wide audience on highly respectable Canadian Broadcasting Company. The AFD is astonishing. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person can quite easily be a "leading commentator and broadcaster" with a "major nation-wide audience" while still not actually being the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article. I've heard of the guy too, but the fact that there isn't a whole lot of coverage about him is not "astonishing" — media personalities actually fall quite frequently on the wrong side of the distinction between I've-heard-of-them "fame" and properly-sourceable "notability", because the fact that they appear in media coverage of other topics is not the same thing as being the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above and in the first AFD, the problem here is that while he frequently appears in media coverage of other subjects as an authority on those matters, he isn't the subject of enough media coverage — the kind where he's the topic of the coverage — to write a properly verifiable article that cites enough reliable sources to get past WP:GNG. We actually have this problem quite frequently with television and radio personalities — their names are well-known enough that they seem notable, but since they aren't the subject of the coverage it's almost impossible to actually write an encyclopedia article about them without relying almost entirely on primary sources like their Speakers Bureau profile or their "meet our personalities" blurb on the website of the television or radio outlet that they work for. He's certainly notable enough in principle that he should qualify for an article — but this article, as written, is not good enough to be kept, and there aren't enough sources out there about him to improve it. Delete, but do so without prejudice against future recreation if and when there are more good sources that can be cited. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] and [2] are both half-decent pieces that are about him, rather than him providing his opinions. They are, however, local sources. I would say, however, that these do combine with the fact that he seems to be CBC's go-to man for this sort of thing to convey some notability, as much per WP:COMMONSENSE. As the coverage on him is generally local, however, this is a Weak keep. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:26, 30 January 2014 (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.