Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Kelly (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 delete. W.marsh 21:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Kelly

Hugo Kelly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article has survived an AfD in December 20056, but it seems to me that it needs to be reconsidered. Looking through the sources, and discounting blogs and articles in which the name "Kelly" does not appear, it seems that the subject is notable only for one event, namely generating some news coverage when being fired by Crikey. While the article may be verifiable in most of its parts, it seems to fail the notability criteria. Also, from comments on the talk page, and from the fact that the picture seems to be rather a private photo - taken at a corporate christmas party -, I suspect that we have WP:COI issues here. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 10:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The nomination outlines the problems. There is one event, a firing, that approaches notability. It fails WP:BIO. --Stormbay 20:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because even if the article was started by his girlfriend and was very poor quality (and still isn't great) the main stream media have written about him enough to make him notable. I added the full text of the Crikey article about sacking him so you can see that ref (since you normally need a subscription to read it): Talk:Hugo Kelly#The 'Vale Hugo Kelly' article Donama 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable bio. Having a small readership and generating a little buzz for getting fired does not equal notability. -- No Guru 00:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Some claim to notability but not notable enough for mine. Most Google News Archives hits are about a boxer from the early 1900s who warrants an article. [1] Capitalistroadster 01:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 01:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I don't know how it's considered in Australia, but I;'d think that if he's notable enough that several major australian publications think his getting fired is worth articles, then he's notable. DGG (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Week Keep Borderline notable and sources (even dead tree ones) will be found. COI, while a concern, isn't a reason to delete unless the article is irretrievably poor. This one is not that bad. Notability extends to more than just his sacking to his role in the formation of Crikey. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No, COI is not a direct reason for deletion; but since the article has originally been created by someone directly related to the subject, apparently (ab)using Wikipedia as a soapbox, we should be double careful to attribute everything to reliable sources. (Note that the source pasted to the talk page even mentions the Wiki entry.) Is there any relevant press coverage about him that is not directly related to the Crikey incident - i.e. before that or substantially after that (it's a while ago now)? If not, I would rather see WP:BLP1E applied. --B. Wolterding 09:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, COI is not a reason to delete. On the subject of notability though, I don't see getting fired, even from a high-profile site like Crikey, as reaching the bar. Lankiveil 11:45, 25 October 2007 (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.