Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Hines

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 and Protect from Recreation. Nishkid64 19:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Hines

This article has been created approximately 12 different times, and deleted each time. The earliest delete seems to have been in April. The article appears to me to be autobiographical, as the author at one point signed his name "HINES" on a talk page - however, I have asked him if he is Brad Hines, and he has neither confirmed nor denied it. The links the author gives do not seem to support notabilty. (He was quoted in one line of a story in USA Today, but the article was not about him. The other links are, I believe, mainly about the industry he is in rather than the person himself). An independent search also has not turned up anything notable about this person, and it's my belief that he is therefore not notable. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. TheOtherBob 01:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As an update, the author has now blanked the page, so this may be a moot point. However, please feel free to leave comments. --TheOtherBob 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is now un-blanked, so please ignore my previous comment. --TheOtherBob 01:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

I am the author of this page, and I am not Brad Hines, I work within Yum Domains. When I signed "Hines" it was a joke as you had implied I was in the previous posting. That article in the USA Today was written in the first place because Brad Hines suggested it. You can call up Jon Schwartz the editor at the USA Today and verify this.

The other thing to consider is the fact that as time goes on this entry will only become more valid as Mr. Hines gains credibility (although he is already noteworthy per his age, accomplisments, and press credits that back these up). I blanked the page to start over as I had screwed up my HTML. Also please note I am new to wikipedia.

Please check the entries for both Mark Zuckerberg and Bob Parsons. Anyone can see both these entries are very similar. There is little information on the domain industry on wikipedia. It's people like me that will build this and change it, please help me work together with you folks to make it solid information.

What does it matter if Googling "Brad Hines entreprenuer" turns in little results. That's ridiculous. Try Googling "Brad Hines Domains" A QUARTER MILLION come up.

Respectfully,

Gordon Brown 'Utzchips"--Utzchips 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take your word on that - but a friend of Brad Hines is only marginally better. The argument that the person "will be notable eventually" is made pretty often. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it reports those people who are currently notable - not those who think they will be.

Mark Zuckerberg and Bob Parsons work in the same industry as Brad Hines, but that does not make him notable. I work in the same industry as Antonin Scalia and Eliot Spitzer - but am nonetheless non-notable.

(added paragraph:) About the Google hits. I only get about 250. I haven't studied them, but it looks like at least half are about someone else (someone at Lockheed). So 125 hits isn't a lot - I probably have about 50 pages with my name on them, and I'm not actively promoting a business and starting websites that include my name. (end of added paragraph).

You mentioned that you are new to Wikipedia, and I am glad you're here. Although I don't think this article should be included, I nonetheless hope you'll continue to contribute on other ones. --TheOtherBob 02:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the thing though, the analogy about Zuckerberg or Parsons had nothing to do with industry, I could have chosen Dan Galambous instead for example. It was about the magnitude. All Three are Presidents of their company. Niether zuckerberg nor parsons have donanted an Art club to a university either. In fact, based on what you have told me, zuckerberg's entry ought to be removed. It seems to mostly dicuss his personal life.

Kindly, Utz --Utzchips 03:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of selective quoting (which I don't mean to do), Utzchips and I have been continuing a conversation on his talk page (which is not strictly the right way to go about it, but I wanted to feel him out on this issue a bit without clogging up the AfD). Here are a few things I've learned:

1. Brad Hines is about to start managing a rap artist.
2. Hines has an apparently self-published book about how you can get rich buying and selling cars. www.autoprofitz.com.
3. Hines has donated to an art museum.

None of those things necessarily militates one way or the other, and I encourage you to read the full talk page for context if you're interested. --TheOtherBob 04:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hines donated A virtual museum, not to a museum. He currently manages lenny P and is a rapper himself (montrealbrad.com). Thats not as interesting as his position with yum domains however.--Utzchips 04:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh. Now we've got two apparently brand new users with no user pages or discussion pages arguing to keep within 10 minutes of each other. I don't know how to check this out, and I don't mean to toss this accusation around lightly, but they look like sock puppets to me. If they are, please stop.--TheOtherBob 04:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Read my letter above.--Utzchips 05:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Yes, it's him: he says so on one of the variant images he uploaded for the article (Image:Mef.jpg ("I, the author of this work...") Ultimately, though, that doesn't matter so much as its unverifiability and failure of our biographical guidelines: '"Brad Hines" entrepreneur' gets only 54 google hits. Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons I stated in the nomination. --TheOtherBob 01:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Delete per nomination, history, and current behavior. wtfunkymonkey 01:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete failing the verifiability and biography guidelines, and salt the article space. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 02:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, among domainers, Brad Hines is really well known, even if he's not universally famous. I think the press he's gotten verifies this. '"BradHines" domains' gets 264 hits. I remember when the old rule was "if it matters to 1000 people, its notable for wikipedia." Consdering the ever-growing size of the domain community and the attendence of the conventions these days, I think that Brad Hines surely meets this threshold, especially as the President of Yum Domains. Ivymike21 03:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. I should really go create an article about my crush. She's popular, so I'm quite sure at least 1000 of the people at my school would care. Do you honestly think that means she is notable enough for an article? And as for your 264 google hits, that at LEAST picks up every single Brad Hines mentioned on the Internet. And I can imagine the search terms not being in quotes, this giving you results from every page that mentions ANYONE with first name Brad along with ANYONE with last name Hines. -Amarkov ^babble 03:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, salt, and block user if he won't stop recreating an article. This is a conflict of interest, the subject is non-notable except to a tiny group of people (and aren't most of us notable in some way to some group of people?) and the writer is using Wikipedia as an advertisement and promotion. --Charlene 03:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt against recreation. Seems very much to be a self-promotion article, and I'm dubious about many of the claims in the article. Captainktainer * Talk 04:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it. This person is indeed as claimed and noteworthy as well as he's been mentioned in the news alot for the domain name stuff lately, maybe the other information should just be removed.--MonMonstah 04:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC) User's first edit. Antandrus (talk)
• Delete. As per above, I am the only person doing my job at the University of Pennsylvania. I have a unique skillset, and have even merited recognition from the top of the Health System. But I am not notable. Individuals doing the same job as hundreds of other people like them in the same organization have merited national and even international recognition in medical research and clinical treatment, and while many of them don't have articles here, a few do. Notability, while subjective, is almost always recognized when it is NOT there. Hope this elucidates the point for the article creator here. - CobaltBlueTony 03:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and agree with the block suggestion. Once could be a n00b mistake, twice or three times a minor irritation, but 12 times? That's just begging for a block. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have heard of this person twice now. Also I checked out the references listed and they seem legit too. --SBruz10 04:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC) User's first edit. Antandrus (talk)
• What does salt mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Utzchips (talk • contribs).

• It's Wikipedia slang for protecting a page against recreation. --MCB 05:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comes from salting the earth. Delete --Ouro 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, does not pass WP:BIO. "Famous among domainers" is sort of like "famous among dry cleaners".
• Keep it, I had the privilege of knowing him personally. Great guy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.163.230 (talk • contribs). - User's first edit. TheOtherBob (talk)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and only notable to a small group of people. TJ Spyke 05:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Utzchips, do not delete my vote again. That is vandalism. TJ Spyke 05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I just put back in another vote that Utx delete (the one from Captainktainer). TJ Spyke 05:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt the earth. This individual is no more notable than he was the previous twelve times. Resolute 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--AvinSanjih 06:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC) User's first edit. Antandrus (talk)
• Delete for obvious reasons, and ban all the socks. Fan-1967 06:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ive read all of it, nothing to fuss over, keep 'er--Funnimilk 06:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC) User's first edit. Luna Santin 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:V and per above nonsense. Wickethewok 06:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect as per above arguements. Possible sockpuppetry doesn't really help the situation either.--TBCΦtalk? 07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect. Twelve times? Nobody protected it, say, the fifth time? Opabinia regalis 07:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect. I tagged the previous incarnation of the article as A7, and I'm curious that it was resurrected so fast.--Oneiros 12:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, protect and indef block the socks involved. --BostonMA ^talk 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. Also note that the external links are to articles where he is quoted (sometimes a one-liner). These aren't article about Brad Hines. So I don't see this as independent press coverage. -- Whpq 14:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. All external references are trivial; Hines is mentioned in passing, but none of these articles are actually about him. This might be a good time to WP:SALT as well. If he someday meets WP:BIO the namespace dould be unprotected.--Isotope23 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above also protect. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per various others re WP:BIO. Gehockteh leber 00:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt Non-notable per WP:BIO. JChap2007 00:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect until he does something slightly more notable. --Giddytrace 02:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect, fails WP:BIO and please please protect it, for goodness sake. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious delete and salt per all of the above. Non-notable, conflict of interest (which, in this case, can clearly be considered "vanity"), and use of sockpuppets in AFD. Not to mention... <Ed Rooney voice> Twelve times??? (Even Ferris Beuller was called out after nine times!) Wavy G 08:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I personally believe that WP:COI is flexibile, and may sometimes fall under WP:IAR; however, given subject's heavy abuse of sockpuppetry and behavior, should we really want to bend the rules? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Quoted in USA Today is notable enough for me. Sockpuppets are reprehensible, but they should not be permitted to poison the well for either side of a debate. Unfocused 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment He was not the subject of the article, merely quoted on another topic. JChap2007 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Which is why I said "Quoted in USA Today". Please do not reformat my comments. Unfocused 01:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Merely being quoted doesn't establish notability. It also doesn't give us much of a basis for an article. With respect to my "reformatting" of your comment, I just bolded your "keep," to make it more prominent. You'll notice the other !votes are bolded in this fashion. But if you want an unbolded "keep," hey, it's your life ... JChap2007 02:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  I usually hate it when, when someone voices an opinion against the majority, people start asking "why are you voting that way?" (Because that's their opinion...) But I'm going to break my own rule to pose a question - if someone who was in Hurricane Katrina is quoted on the front page of USA Today commenting on the hurricane, are they therefore notable? Similarly, if a little-league team wins the Little League World Series, and one of its players is quoted in the New York Times, is that little-leaguer notable? I'm just not sure that saying that "a quote is enough" wouldn't open up the gates to anyone and everyone - there are hundreds of news stories every day, and most of them quote at least a person or two. Or is there something about this particular quote that makes you think it is different/sufficient? I'm in no way saying that your position is "wrong" - only that I'm not sure I understand it yet. (Oh, and I don't think JChap meant offense by reformatting your comment - he was just trying to make it easier to read.) Thanks.--TheOtherBob 02:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Re: your examples -- is the Katrina victim's job to be a professional hurricane victim? Is it the Little Leaguer's profession to be a Little League player? A quote is enough in this context since it is directly from the man's profession and area of expertise. I took no offense at being reformatted, but made mention to discourage others from doing the same. I think bolding the lead word puts too much emphasis on it as if a vote, rather than a brief summary of my discussion points. Unfocused 03:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm. Those are fair points. But then the requirement is that the person is quoted for saying something in connection with his job and expertise? What about an attorney that is asked to comment on a murder case? It's clearly his job to be a lawyer and know the law, but he could just be some yahoo attorney the reporter happened to know. Would the comment in an article make him notable, if he'd not otherwise ever done anything notable? (I'm taking you down this road, because it's suddenly looking like I might be notable. :-P) If so, what is he notable for? He's not a notable lawyer, so he could only be notable as "that guy that said that thing that day." But that can't be enough, can it? --TheOtherBob 04:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, absolutely right. If Brad Hines gets to keep his article, then we are all obligated to write our own articles, for we are by all means notable by virtue of participating in this discussion. And, oh boy, are you guys in luck, because I love talking about myself! Wavy G 05:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  There is no slippery slope. Put the nail where you like it. I will do the same. Notability is NOT policy for very good reasons. I think someone quoted in their area of expertise in the national newspaper is notable enough. He's clearly verifiable. Unfocused 05:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems like way too much potential for abuse exists if being the president of a company that would not meet WP:CORP can become notable based on one newspaper quote. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 06:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and protect. Brimba 09:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Laughing Delete - ludicrously non-notable and this is an open-and-shut case for salt-earthing. Moreschi 15:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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.