Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven J. Hill
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. It appears WebMedia may be notable, but notabiity is not inherited, and such. Essentially nothing on the man. WilyD 09:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steven J. Hill[edit]
- Steven J. Hill (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)
A promotional article on a non-notable person. Sources don't bear out that either he or his companies/activities are notable one way or the other. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - always query any article that uses LinkedIn as a "source". Some of the "sources" provided don't even mention the subject - not even in passing. Not at all notable as far as I can see. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with using Linkedin for additional information and uncontroversial claims. WP:SPS allows this use of social networks. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this WP:ADVERT per WP:GNG and a host of other policies. Qworty (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Help Hi, I've obviously mucked this up. This is one of my first wikipedia articles and I was honestly tried to maintain a neutral tone and really didn't want it to come across like spam or as an advertisement. I tried to compare it other existing articles as a reference but it sounds like I did a pretty bad job of it, sorry! Is there any recommendations of how I can improve this article because I really would like to? I approached it like an online web article but perhaps I've gotten the style wrong? Also, I think I had the wrong idea about sources/references so I'm going to try and fix that. I really want to be able to write and help edit wikipedia articles in the future and if you can steer me on the right track it would be appreciated. (Also, I'm not too sure if this is how I contribute to this discussion, I hope I did it right.)- From the author yingykong (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2012 (GMT)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SimonLyall (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as above. I also note that main author of the User:Yingykong is a similar name to Ying Kong the "Marketing & Social Media Strategist at Mind Warriors International Limited" See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Jackson - SimonLyall (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Help - Hi, I haven't tried to hide the fact of who I am. I felt that both Wade Jackson and Steve Hill have reached notable status in New Zealand due to what they have contributed in their areas of expertise. It made sense to try and write a Wikipedia page about them. But obviously I haven't done a very good job. I wanted to maintain neutral and cover them as individuals in their own right not as an advert or spam. As this is my first wikipedia article, I would like to apologize that I've done quite a piss poor job of it. I would like to contribute to wikipedia in the future. Please advise recommendation so that I can fix any policies I may have breached and ensure that further articles are up to the standard that is required. yingykong (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.102.209 (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yingykong, I don't think you've broken any policy whatsoever. So you have a conflict of interest--that in itself is no capital offense, as long as you edit neutrally. I happen to think that those people aren't notable by our guidelines, but there's nothing wrong with trying to write them up anyway. I've asked some other editors to have a look at this discussion and the article; maybe they are able to help out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I haven't checked the sources carefully enough to see if any of them help meet WP:GNG, but I find sending a new user's article to AfD 40 minutes after creation to be somewhat unhelpful. A better option would have been to tag the article as {{refimprove}} and alert an appropriate Wikiproject so they can have a look at getting better sources. Would it have been a serious threat to Wikipedia for this article to stick around for about another week before being AfDed? You're lucky that the ARS haven't got this one on their radar... --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm lucky? Ritchie, I think there are a few things that you fundamentally misunderstand. If the article is improved and kept, that's a win. What do you think this is, the daily confrontation between the Sharks and the Jets? Drmies (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're certainly lucky that Yingykong has been humble and civil enough to say "okay, my first article wasn't up to scratch". He could have easily have said "sod this for a game of soldiers, I'm off to Facebook" and we'd be discussing where all the new editors went at WP:WER again. The reference to the ARS was more a reference to the fact that they can generally talk a better argument against deletion than I can, so I'm a bit surprised you nominated this at AfD and then asked the ARS to rescue it. Isn't that a bit overkill, as opposed to just improving the article? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do I even respond? *sigh* I looked, I found nothing--and I have found in the past that sometimes others can find things that I can't. That's why. I'm lucky in a lot of ways and a lot of reasons, none of them having anything to do with Wikipedia. Now why don't you go improve the article? Or do something useful, instead of bitching at me every chance you get? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose showing you a really, really, cute picture of a cat and agreeing to disagree will help? Chill. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do I even respond? *sigh* I looked, I found nothing--and I have found in the past that sometimes others can find things that I can't. That's why. I'm lucky in a lot of ways and a lot of reasons, none of them having anything to do with Wikipedia. Now why don't you go improve the article? Or do something useful, instead of bitching at me every chance you get? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're certainly lucky that Yingykong has been humble and civil enough to say "okay, my first article wasn't up to scratch". He could have easily have said "sod this for a game of soldiers, I'm off to Facebook" and we'd be discussing where all the new editors went at WP:WER again. The reference to the ARS was more a reference to the fact that they can generally talk a better argument against deletion than I can, so I'm a bit surprised you nominated this at AfD and then asked the ARS to rescue it. Isn't that a bit overkill, as opposed to just improving the article? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm lucky? Ritchie, I think there are a few things that you fundamentally misunderstand. If the article is improved and kept, that's a win. What do you think this is, the daily confrontation between the Sharks and the Jets? Drmies (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment:It was listed at the ARS so I am bound by my pact with Satan to !vote keepThere's not a lot to go on here. The corporate entrepreneur bio article typically rises or falls based on how many profiles he's managed to get written about him in mainstream news sources. I don't see any here, nor enough about him individually spread among articles to rise to the same level. Not even sure the "JOLT challenge" is notable, but that may be best shot for notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to help - yingykong to determine notability you should see Wikipedia:Notability (people) in particular WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. A lot of the sources quoted are primary sources and lack independence. I have had a look at the article and struggle to find anything that helps it across the line other than possibly his start up company. The things I would be looking for are: in depth coverage in major media - ie NZ Herald, Dominion Post, etc for NZ or their overseas equivalents; are there any significant awards; and/or is there any significant achievement. I hope this helps. Also, just because he doesn't meet the criteria at the moment does not mean that he won't in the future. I have also commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Jackson NealeFamily (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2012 (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.