Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucian Hudson

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 17:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Hudson[edit]

Lucian Hudson (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)

Non-notable figure. Has engaged in some endeavors, but lacks multiple reliable sources about the subject. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This page should not be subject to deletion, based on the subject meeting WP:GNG (topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject), as well as WP:BIO (the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"). This is based on reliable sources cited in the profile. These include, but are not limited to:

Those on his career as a journalist and producer for the BBC, as well as its head of international channel programming:

  • Richard Cann, PR Week UK, 9 July 2004, 12:00AM (2004-07-09). "Profile: A passion for precision - Lucian Hudson, director of comms, The Department for Constitutional Affairs - Brand Republic News". Brandrepublic.com. Retrieved 2013-06-25.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  • cite web|author= revolutionmagazine.com, 15 December 1999, 12:00AM |url=http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/126226/BBC-programming-head-leaves-jobseekers--web-site/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH |title=BBC programming head leaves for jobseekers' web site. – Brand Republic News |publisher= Brandrepublic.com |date=1999-12-15 |accessdate=2013-02-27

His work with the British Government, as the director of e-communications, their first webmaster general, and as a diplomat:

His communication research:

His role as the director of Open University:

His position as the chairman of the Liberal Judaism movement in the UK.

These are all reliable sources supporting the subject's notability. --Amsterdad (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • BrandRepublic appears to be a PR conglomorate. The rest of these sources are not about him, but instead about endeavors he's involved with, and do not confer notability per our guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brand Republic is a website that publishes news on topics in PR, marketing and advertising[1], owned by commercial publisher Haymarket Media Group, and similar to other trade publications like Marketing Week, Campaign, Adweek, Marketing Magazine, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - qualifies per WP:NACADEMICS Point 6 as per Open University position, WP:ARTIST Point 3 for his role as head of BBC World's Newsdesk, and arguing against WP:GNG in this case, even if it were the only leg to stand on, is ridiculous. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of hits on Highbeam too, for example The Independent newspaper's October 1, 2000 article Ex-BBC Man Is Government Web Supremo, which could easily replace the Brand Republic on the political appointment article if need be. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that also essentially a PR hit? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an article by Clayton Hirst. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is certainly no pass of WP:Prof. The article has the oleagenous gloss of a PR exercise, its size out of proportion to the importance of its subject. Even if it passes WP:GNG it will have to be pruned or stubbified. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete (1) PRWeek is unreliable for showing notability. It publishes whatever anyone sends it. And is is not director of Open University. He's their Communications Director. That does not give notability as WP:PROF. I join others in suggesting that the article would show any notability better if rewritten from scratch, without trying to include everything remotely possible, and limiting the references to reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Passing off press releases as news sources is not constructive. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've taken the liberty of looking for more sources that prove notability as there really are a lot of quasi-reliable sources here. First Computer Weekly wrote an article on the Blair appointment (New Webmaster General Taken On); here's a short piece in an industry mag on the JustPeople job (Head Leaves Jobseekers Website); a Post Gazette article on the Defra position (Ex-BBC Hudson press chief at DCA ); a mention of his earlier BBBC career in a university press book (not much, but still) here with further reporting on that incident here here; and so forth. None of these are PR hits. Although I do think that the UK's first PM appointed webmaster is in and of itself a notable aspect as well, but I could be wrong there? I also notice that nobody has discussed whether being in charge of BBC programming is notable. Just curious. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice per WP:IAR. This article (and others created by the same editor) has all the hallmarks of paid editing. I agree completely with DGG who on this subject wrote on his talk page: "The difficulty is that there is often just enough notability that a decent article could be written. This can put us in the absurd of having a dozen people spend time on the AfD & someone spend a hour or so rewriting, so he can collect his money." --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many questionable and self-published sources; this article exemplifies the PR-driven editing which is negatively affecting the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 20:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PROF not satisfied; links merely establish the CV-like factoids and do not establish notability. The notability requirements are intended to avoid the encyclopedia being overrun with puffery showing every person or thing that has mentions. Johnuniq (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on above concerns. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep this would need to be edited down drastically, but in my view the governmetn positions (first at the UK's FCO and then as the UK's "first PM appointed webmaster" as Jeremy112233) are alone enough to indicate notability. When you add in the Marie Cure cancer center, the Open University position, and the chairmanship of the major "Liberal Judiasm" organization over several years, and the press coverage that comes with them, I think this clearly passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. It may well be paid editing, or since the subject is himself a communications pro, it may actually be an autobio. All the press releases should go. But after looking at the sources now cites in the article and the additional ones linked in this discussion, I think this should stay. DES (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I understand your criticism; it seems to be based heavily on the nature of some of my sources. I am really just trying to make these entries complete and of high quality, and I do apologize for taking up everyone's time on this when I missed that mark. Should I go in there now and start cutting down the page, taking everyone's recommendations into account? Amsterdad (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a paid editor, or with any other conflict of interest, most of us would say you have two choices here. One is to wait until someone else wants to write an article on the subject. The other is to write the article using the WP:AFC process, or as a subpage of your user page, and then see if others approve it. You would do best not to edit the present article, and if someone else starts one, you would do best to make suggestions on its talk page, not the article itself. The best guide on this at present is at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide -- though not policy, it is based on policy, and in general opinion its advice gives the safest guide. As some further advice when you try to rewrite, if you do decide to try according to the rules, is to realize first that it is possible that the available sources do not adequately support notability (I'd think any paid editor would know enough to protect themselves from doing uncompensated work by only working on subject of unquestionable notability), and second, that the problem is not just sourcing: it is the inclusion of extraneous material and links used to give a good impression of the importance of the subject, and the writing in such as a way as to state his accomplishments without sources to back them up--if you want to say his role in a particular position was X, you need a third party source to prove it; if you wish to say he was the first to do something, you need a third party source to show not only that he did it, but that he was the first. You also need to avoid exaggeration. In the article, you put the title of his paper in italics, as if it were a book, and you put emphasis on his award from the publisher of the journal itself, perhaps the most unreliable of possible sources. You call him the "first diplomat to...". I don;t even see evidence he is a diplomat--he was the UK delegate to a single meeting. You also need to write inn jargon-free language. I note "around the world" "ongoing learning" "implementation across all government departments" and several dozen such. A NPOV article cannot be built out of such statements.
If you are not a paid editor, I apologize for thinking you are--but you need to be careful to avoid writing like one. It's true the paid editors have done so much COI writing here that naïve beginners might think that's what we consider acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, Thank you for apologizing, I will try my hardest to remove any content I added that came from bad sources and apologize myself for not reading the reliable sources policy before starting to edit here. Any further guidance is very welcome! Amsterdad (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Press secretaries to government departments arelikely to be sufficiently in the public eye to be notable, even if they are rarely named in the press, which alludes to "informed sources". His presnet role of press officer to Open University sound less prominent, but notability is not temporary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep He's in Who's Who here: http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whoswho/U41456 - this is absolutely minimum WP:BEFORE. I don't understand why there are so many delete votes above and the only conclusion I can come to is that it is a negative reaction against WP:COI editors, which in this case is ill-advised. Vote on the notability not the behaviour of others. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who's Who is basically a directory. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is very much true - it is a directory of persons who their professional editorial board think are notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which means little to us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs) - quite the opposite to your assertion. It means a great deal. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not true. There are many publications using "Who's Who" in their titles. Marquis Who's Who for example, which is basically a vanity publication (even though some of their entries are well-chosen, mine for example!!) However, this Who's Who uses a professional editorial board and being included in it is indeed not trivial, as Barney says. It's not just a directory, but contains biographies written by their editors. Having said that, personally, I still think this needs to be nuked and started from scratch, rather than wading through all the fluff here. We're only volunteers, you know. --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Randykitty (talk · contribs) - quality issues are important, and while recognising that quality control on Wikipedia is completely haphazard, unreliable, and often contentious, you could nuke this article to a stub without having to unnecessarily WP:AFD it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RK, we have normally not considered the British WW to give notability. If you think we should change that, we should have a general discussion.
Barney, sometimes I would stubbify, but when it represents promotional editing, the editing in question needs to be discouraged, and the only way we can do that is by deleting the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP can take a different view on notability from the British Who's Who (and Who was Who), but they do not include people that they consider NN. Accordingly, inclusion there is at least a strong indication of notablility. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I for one see that the only issue with the article is overly positive writing, definitely not notability. Can't argue with DGG on the style issues, but see them as easy enough to cull; I would do it but not until I know the twenty minutes or so are not going to be wasted via a deletion. Of course it would be better if the article originator could do it themselves, assuming we find no COI... Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • wp:TNT or failing that stubbify. I believe he passes the GNG, but the article appears to be the result of paid editing and is certainly a puff-piece using wp:BOMBARD to make him look much more notable than he is. I don't think the article's salvageable. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean out the cruft throigh the normal editing process. it's not so bad as to required blowing up. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 4 March 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, Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lucian_Hudson&oldid=1216076384"