Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bane Hunter


 * 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. Sockpuppets have been ignored. Courcelles (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Bane Hunter

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

While the misdeed (not sure it's a crime, since there were no criminal penalties) and civil penalty were noteworthy, this individual does not have enough in-depth coverage about the person themselves, outside the event, to meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you for your feedback, I'm the primary author of the article. As I'm a relatively new editor I based the notability test and content and depth on existing wiki pages in the same category Category:Australian businesspeople, i.e. Angus Harris, Peter Barrett (entrepreneur), Lui Giuliani, David Clarke (businessman), Phillip Kingston, Gary March. I'll continue to do research and add more around his personal life, but is there anything specific you would note? JMichaelLee (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Referring to BIO1E the guidelines allow for an article to be created for "both the event and the individual" if "media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger". Indeed I have created an article ASIC v GetSwift Ltd which covers the particulars of the single civil case in more detail, and I hope to express below why I believe Hunter's role deserves its own article.
 * My proclamation is that Hunter's role (as Director then later CEO) became more than just ASIC v GetSwift Ltd and was significant and a major contribution to the public discourse which followed the company GetSwift. His role became the story as evidence by Hunter himself receiving the largest penalty of the three individuals involved in the event, but also the largest penalty ever imposed by the Australian Federal Court. This is further supported by the Australian Securities Exchange changing public company listing rules requiring all directors to be of "good fame and character" as a result of Hunter's actions.
 * I have added comprehensive coverage from numerous and multiple national media outlets covering Hunter over the course of five years.
 * In summary, Hunter's involvement in ASIC v GetSwift Ltd was so significant and his personal contribution was covered in such detail by the media over such a long period of time and extends beyond a single event ASIC v GetSwift Ltd it satisfies the "single event" notability test allowed for by BIO1E and justifies the creation of seperate articles.
 * Finally as commented separately, I'm a relatively new editor and I've tried to follow other articles in Category:Australian businesspeople and whilst I acknowledge some of the aforementioned linked articles could be flagged, Hunter is more notable than many.
 * I appreciate your re-consideration for deletion and welcome any further discussion JMichaelLee (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — JMichaelLee (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Weak Keep Referring to essay WP:What BLP1E is not, Article fails criteria (1), arguably fails criteria (2) but does not fail criteria (3) as individuals role was well cited in Article. MetricMaster (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.
 * cu note to closer and  are ✅ to one another, and now indef blocked. Please take that into account when considering what weight to give their views.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete As the AfC review who accepted the article, I thought it was borderline and knew an NPP reviewer would provide a secondary check. Given notability concerns, especially WP:BLP1E not to mention the socking, I agree it should be deleted.  The legal issues and his involvement are covered at ASIC v GetSwift Ltd.   S0091 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2023 (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.