Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Hewlett


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Jason Hewlett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete Non-notable. Entire article reads like spam and self-promotion.  Ffffrank (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It is true that, "Entire article reads like spam and self-promotion." I'll add: boring.  Which is not smart for a comedian.  Some fan should come fix it.  The article does have a list of links to sources; lousy sources.  Several are in real news outlets, but, as I said, unpersuasive when you click.   So I ran a simple google news search on his name.  I don't iVote delete without running a search.  And I was stunned by the hits. Here's my search:.   Turns out that is a "family-friendly" (i.e., no foul language) comedian, with real coverage in real newspapers:, , , ,   OK, so those were all in Utah, which, as many of you know, is not really part of America. (joke)  I kept scrolling, and next up a long feature article an interview in  Forbes: .  There are more.  But I'll stop here except to say that Nom ought to have WP:BEFORE before taking up our time with this.  Bad article does not always = lack of notability.  In this case, it may only mean that there are whole, vast swaths of America where nobody is interested in editing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for taking the time to do some research. I did read WP:BEFORE and to be perfectly honest, this is all new to me and it is possible that I skipped a step.  Your sources do demonstrate... something?  Not sure if it rises to level of "notability" but it may.  I suppose at the least, I find fault with the content of the article and it doesn't appear that the content has generated much interest or editors over the last few years.  There are a lot of facts but they do not seem to come from relevant and published secondary sources.  I'm assuming they come from a press release.  I don't feel comfortable removing 90% of the articles content but perhaps that is a better solution and will inspire one of his fans to fill it back in with properly cited information? --Ffffrank (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been there, run searches  and missed major stuff stuff.  I think the newspaper stories I linked to plus the Forbes article are dispositive.   and that your next move should be to withdraw the nomination.  I totally agree with you that this paltry, old, neglected article is a problem, it's a widespread  problem.  There are a lot of article like this out there, Articles in desperate need of editing.  I just  don't think  AFD is the solution.   Encouraging more people to come edit might be.  I'm outta here.  Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and welcome. I'm fairly new myself.  Frankly, I found the place so off-putting (aggressive, mean-spirited) that I would have quit - except that there is a group of POV editors working to push me off.  It made me so mad that I decided to stick around.  I hope you will, too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to:, , , , , , . If you'd like, you can always withdraw the nomination. North America1000 23:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep only if there is actually considerably coverage about him. SwisterTwister   talk  06:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't see any reason to keep this.  VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the sources above that demonstrate the subject's notability, as per WP:BASIC? North America1000 05:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -- The content reads like self-promotion by a performer. He seems to have had a full-time contract for some years in the mid-2000s, after which the biography seems full of gaps.  This probably means that he was earning his living by other means and only occasionally appearing as a performer.  This suggests to me that he has commercially been a comparative failure, which in turn suggests that he is NN.  My concern is with notability, not sourcing.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Puzzled by Peterkingiron's comment. Sources are how we gauge WP:NOTABILITY.  The sources cited above are significant, extensive, in-depth... As for a putative career break, it makes no difference to notability (WP:nottemporary) and is OR, but note that the Forbes article ran fall 2015.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. Even if citations were added for the achievements listed on this page, the subject would still not qualify for his own wikipedia page. I agree with the previous comments that the article reads as self-promotion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep changed to delete. I see this a lot: a subject has a knack for creating press for himself without any kind of notable achievement that has had an impact or created significant recognition. Even the opening sentence of the Forbes article cited here admits the guy "isn't famous." And yet the self-created press seems plentiful enough that it *does* fit within WP:NOTABILITY rules. Personally I'm frustrated by the scores of such folks of marginal entertainment industry achievement meriting Wikipedia entries based on local "appearing-on-stage-tonight"-type press clippings---often the result of their own PR efforts---but those *are* the rules. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what the Forbes article says. It credits him with having renounced the chance at a mainstream career out of Christian commitment, and with having a notably successful professional career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * hmmm. E.M Gregory's comment here got me to take a second look at the Forbes article. Unless this appeared in the print version--and considering this "article" serves as a gateway to the columnist's weekly live on-line interview on social entrepreneurship---I'm thinking this is not significant coverage at all. It has little over 400 views. Views of his online (You Tube) posts also number in the hundreds. This is why I'm now changing my vote to Delete. This subject is no doubt successful as a corporate entertainer, but that doesn't mean he's notable. I'm even more convinced now his greatest talent is beating his own drum. I should note a recent online story about cheating-but-not-cheating on his wife went viral, racking up hundreds of thousands hits. But this "story" appears more of a "plant" rather than independent coverage, attesting even more so towards his ability to gin up his own coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Some Youtube videos hit, . Let's keep this discussion accurate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Deseret News is a major daily, and the hits on google news  and the articles listed above are more than enough to pass WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I pretty much blanked the page, rewrote what I could source.  page had not been updated in a long time. Accused here of self-promotion, Hewlett certainly did not update his page when he resumed his stage career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Editors new to AFD should understand that the question we address here is not whether the page is well-written, promotional, or even whether the page is sourced. Our question is whether sources about the topic exist (even though they are not currently on the page) and whether they are sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC.  As experienced editor User:Northamerica1000 notes above, it does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:HEYMANN page is entirely re-written. I believe that in its present form and sourcing, it would not be brought to AFD by any editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - While I disagree with the concept that we don't delete articles which are highly promotional per WP:DEL4, that can be a valid reason, I don't think this article, especially after the editing done in recent weeks, qualifies per that rationale. And since that has been taken off the table, the sources clearly pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:48, 11 December 2015 (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.