Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hagan

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hagan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person, no reliable sources supporting the claims in the article. The initial revision contained a link to a Buffalo News article, however, the article doesn't mention Bill Hagan or William John Hagan (which is a deleted duplicate of this article). The article was nominated for speedy deletion. I replaced the tag with prod template, as there was a claim of notability (He is a founding member of the reestablished Federalist Party). Another administrator retagged the article as {{db-a7}}, but the CSD tag was removed shortly after that by another administrator. I'm bringing it here to resolve the matter. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, no indication of wp:notability. Even if claims in the text were accepted, there is nothing indicating such. Notability of "reestablishing" of the federalist party applears low. It's not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article on it, nor is he. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the linked Federalist Party article has got nothing to do with this article, it's about the original partyTigerboy1966 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence whatever of notability. This article is part of a campaign by its creator to publicise this new "Federalist Party" and its members. The party has no connection, apart from the name, with the historical party of the same name which is the subject of the article which Vejvančický linked to above. The party does not appear to be notable, so I do not agree that his membership of that party is "a claim of notability", and I think the article could justifiably have been speedily deleted. However, speedy or not, it is a somewhat promotional article on a non-notable subject, and should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, clearly WP:SOAP and probably a COI as well. Arbor8 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all the above. Kraxler (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horribly promotional. Google News archives come up empty on him. Having your picture taken with a bunch of pols does not qualify you for an article, and spamming those photos into other articles does not endear you to other editors. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill Hagan article is now really great. I would like the deletion request removed as this is just a way of hazing new users as we try to learn. Just my thoughts. - Burt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfkghdkfhsk (talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you go back and read the article as it is now finish or nearly finsihed. Bill Hagan is a major player in Western New York poltics, a noted journalist, several wiki users have been nice enough to help me fix this acticle and I vote against deleteing it. - Thanks You- Burt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfkghdkfhsk (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired Vandalism how can one have to many references. Undid revision 452521752 by Ground Zero (talk) signed Burt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfkghdkfhsk (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing Ghfkghdkfhsk - "Stop the vandalism" - Burt. I'll try to remember this my friend. Thank you. Also didn't know we should post at the bottom.Sorry for the protocol error but I am learning quickly. Remember we you ll first started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfkghdkfhsk (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this the administrator in this place. Lets settle this issue my friends. "The Bull Of Bosnia" "Ghfkghdkfhsk" - Burt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfkghdkfhsk (talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this AfD started, the author of the article (Ghfkghdkfhsk) has put a considerable amount of effort into trying to make the article look more notable. He/she has added large amounts of detail, but the substantial majority of it is not about Hagan, but rather about other people, entities, or events that Hagan has some sort of connections to. In fact it seems that the article has been converted into a coatrack to promote and publicise the Federalist Party. There are currently apparently 33 references, though some of them are duplicates, so the true number is smaller than that. Two of these references are not online, but they are just high school and university records of his graduations, so they do nothing to establish notability. Another two are mirror copies of the Wikipedia article on other sites, and so are of no value at all as references. Most of the other "references" are web pages which do not mention Hagan, and those that do are either articles by Hagan, not about Hagan or else make no more than one sentence or rarely two sentence mention of him, usually merely quoting him as a spokesman for someone else. One of them says "Collins spokesman Bill Hagan declined to comment", and that is the only mention of him. The whole lot looks to me like what I would expect if someone had (a) done a Google search for "Bill Hagan" and then indiscriminately added links to the resulting pages in an attempt to make the article look as though it is well-sourced when in fact it isn't, and (b) added links in the guise of "references" to pages relating to the Federalist Party as part of the campaign to publicise it. Frankly, if this is the best that the author of the article can find after evidently, as I have said above, putting a considerable amount of effort into trying to demonstrate notability, then I am even more certain than before that the subject is not notable. "The Bill Hagan article is now really great"??? Not to me it isn't. It's a spam coatrack article on a non-notable subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For further information see also User_talk:Ghfkghdkfhsk#Sources_in_your_article and User_talk:Ghfkghdkfhsk#Your_additions_to_Bill_Hagan. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:10, 29 September 2011 (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.