Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Hebron (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. Coredesat 07:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Hebron

Patrick Hebron (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

NN (see Wikipedia:Notability (people) Subject IS NOT 1) the subject of any secondary source material (reliable or otherwise) 2) a widely recognized....part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field 3) regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors 4) published a significant and well-known academic work (or any), nor a body of work which merits notbability (see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 5) received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Subject is unknown. undistinguished. Article is either vanity or hoax True theory 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• KeepDelete - per True theory. I don't know much about the art scene, but he seems to have done us the service of collecting a number of references. He just mistakenly added a link to a page where he listed them, instead of listing them in his article. I've fixed that. WP:AUTO seems to have been tromped on, but he added useful info, which we can cull anything non notable out of. -Harmil 20:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - - Of the 11 sources only 2 mention his name. They are not Independent sources. They are not Verifiable (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Those references would be better suited for an article on Heide Fasnacht, which does not exist. This would also increase Mr. Hebron's notability, since the only evidence of his writing concerns her. Still, it would not be enough because notability requires a lot more than authoring an article, or even many. This has got to be a hoax. True theory 21:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're incorrect about your definition of verifiable sources (verifiable includes sources that you can't find via Google, you may recall), however you're ABSOLUTELY correct with respect to what they're sourcing. I got very turned around here and thought that this was an article about Heide Fasnacht, not Patrick Hebron. I've revised my sentiment accordingly. -Harmil 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. Um, all the references (as well as the external link) seem to be about the artist Heide Fasnacht, not about Mr. Hebron. Is there any evidence that the subject of the AfD'd article is notable? Deor 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Trying to answer my own question . . . No sources establishing notability are to be found via Google (including News, Books, and Scholar). There is, however, a really scary picture of him here, about halfway down the page (assuming it's the same guy). I say delete. Deor 20:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply the young lady he's with is cute. maybe he should write a page for her instead. True theory 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The references appear to show that Heide Fasnacht may be notable, but it's hard to see how they show the notability of Mr Hebron. - TexasAndroid 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. and TexasAndroid. JohnCD 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He seems to have written a single 4 page article--no books in OCLC or LC. Created by an spa. DGG (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No independant coverage. Epbr123 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe part of the misunderstanding here is caused by the fact that someone changed the "References" section to reflect the citations found on Heide Fasnacht's website. In fact, only two of those citations are by Mr. Hebron and he is not accountable for any of the others. As the original creator of this article, I can tell you that Mr. Hebron has indeed written and been published beyond the subject of Heide Fasnacht. A google search returned no other online documents of his, but I will attempt to contact him for a better list of citations. In the meantime, the article which makes no false statements that I can see, should be kept (with the possible revision to the incorrect reference list.Wikiart0010 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Misunderstanding? Please read the reasoning behind the Afd nomination listed at the top of the page. The issue of citation isn't mentioned. Notability was the initial problem. Please make sure to review Wikipedia:Notability (people) + Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons + Wikipedia:Verifiability, as well familiarize yourself with the whatever other policies and/or guidelines referenced in the previous posts from users in favor of deleting this page (which is everyone except you). There is an overwhelming push for deletion with the only "keep" coming from the article's creator. If Mr. Hebron is well-published, and you're able to verify this, you will also need to write an article demonstrating why he is notable or distinguished in his field. Refer to the criteria section of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and see how Mr. Hebron fairs. Based on my own research and that of other users here, I'm pretty convinced this is pure vanity.True theory (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Google is failing??? Contact the subject??? Oh Delete. Victuallers (talk) 19:06, 17 November 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.