Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. A. Hellyer


 * 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   Keep. The consensus below is that a combination of mentions in reliable sources and common sense means the article should be kept irrespective of whether it meets the letter of the WP:GNG or not. While it is unusual for an AfD to set aside this important guideline, exceptions do exist. My own review of he discussion and the article reveals no policy issues (i.e. WP:V or WP:BLP violations) that would mandate deletion in the face of a clear local consensus to keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

H. A. Hellyer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This subject is not notable: no reliable sources give him in-depth coverage, let alone multiple sources (WP:GNG); he fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC as well, insofar as any such claim might appear from the prose. In virtually every potential source, the subject is the author or is otherwise associated with the publisher. Even if this subject is an expert or writes a lot, his expertise alone is not a basis for notability because neither actually the subject of any significant coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 06:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Firstly, the article as currently written is very short - because all the primary-sourced and/or uncited material, most likely added on behalf of Hellyer, was removed by nom very recently, so there has not been time for other editors to do anything about it. See this version from 29 February to appreciate the changes. The material was not well sourced but that doesn't mean that none of the now-hidden claims could be sourced. We should check - to take just one example, the claimed Brookings Fellowship should be traceable, it would be an odd thing to claim if not true, and it would certainly help to establish notability.


 * ... Secondly, Hellyer is in the (usual for WP) tricky position of being much better known for writing and speaking than for being written about, so we need to consider carefully if he is sufficiently notable in his own right (his recent book is certainly notable but that won't help him much here). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP - I've had a quick look at sources and have added the easiest half-a-dozen, his book and some affiliations in External links, and brief notes on his career as a Middle East 'Expert'. It seems certain there are plenty more RS out there so it's time to say a definite keep. Will add more RS if time - please add some more yourselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – most of these are primary sources. Looks like maybe two secondary sources; depending on how you see it, in-depth coverage may not be there. JFHJr (㊟) 14:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per above: "Hellyer is in the (usual for WP) tricky position of being much better known for writing and speaking than for being written about..." I believe that our notability guidelines for journalists are defective. Hellyer writes for the Egypt Independent and is an expert and public intellectual specializing in matters relating to the European Muslim community. Further parsing for sourcing to follow. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An March 2010 Interview posted by Our Shared Europe. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cited as an expert in a piece published by AOL News. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Notice that he is a fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Full paper published in 2007 by the Brookings Institution, including copious biographical material on page IV. Notes that he was Ford Fellow for Middle East Policy at the Saban Center of the Brookngs Institution. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An expert on polling the Arab community, writing analysis for Gallup. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is clearly an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography. Rather than a test of whether this individual meets GNG, this seems to me more of a test of whether GNG meets the standards of journalists and public intellectuals like this. We who frequent AfD have bumped into this before. There are special metrics to measure the output of academics and ranks and honors to take into consideration, but no appropriate special guidelines for journalists and public intellectuals. In these cases it is best to judge each case on its merits. This is a public figure as an expert and a biography belongs in Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - per User:Carrite. ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 20:33, 9 March 2012 (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.