Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HillJack


 * 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. JForget 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

HillJack

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Evil saltine (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Name-drops a lot, but doesn't asssert notability. There is a band of the nearly-same name which may be notable, though its name isn't CamelCased. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article re-written encyclopedic to meet standards. Premature deletion under simple personal guise of unknown notability risks relevance of Wikipedia to others whom this American personality is recognized. In other words, just because you don't know who this person is, doesn't mean others are also unaware. Wise choice would be to secure Wikipedia relevance and allow re-written article to remain, so others will continue to look to Wikipedia for even the most obscure knowledge. Wikiqwiki (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not include every bit of obscure knowledge. See Notability. Evil saltine (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then Wikipedia risks its own relevance. Just a word to the wise: Don't base Wikipedia upon your own known knowledge. Others would think less of Wikipedia as a reliable source. From Notability "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Consider this: The inclusion of this article does not hurt the relevance of Wikipedia... but removing it does. Wikiqwiki (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability. Above commenter (Wikiqwiki) seems to badly misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia; arguments that Wikipedia is risking its own relevance or importance by not including articles on obscure people and phenomena are nothing new, and don't hold any more weight now than they did when they were first advanced.  What's needed to establish notability of this person isn't vague assertions that some people know who this person is or dire prognostications of Wikipedia's decline in relevance; it's links to coverage of this person in reliable sources.  I looked, but couldn't find any.  (A Google News Archive search, for example, turns up absolutely no relevant hits&mdash;it does turn up 65 hits, but most are about the country music band mentioned above, and the remainder simply use "hilljack" as a vocabulary word; none are about the subject of this article.) &mdash;Smeazel (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough significant coverage to show notability. Kevin (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2009 (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.