Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Hagey


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Hagey

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable biography. No RS, the only refs are self-published, unreliable (IMDB) or trivial (a university mention of a student position). Nowhere near the standards demanded for BLP. Looks like a vanity page. See also the related WP:NEO at Victrolacore. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this bio is about someone (me) who is a published non-fiction author and award winning television creator/producer that has also earned a Masters degree with distinction at Trinity College while serving as their student Head of Divinity. Relying only on Google for notability may be quite limiting in this case. I would like to echo the argument made by Hoary in another deletion debate. The notability of every contestant on Big Brother seems to set the bar fairly low. Is notability only concerned with how many sources reference a person for reasons of celebrity gossip? Hagey has also written for the Comics Journal as a critic and interviewer, famously examining Dave Sims controversial Reads essays. This article has existed since 2009 and has only been marked for deletion debate as I updated it recently. If there is more, or different information that is more appropriate for this page please let me know. I have indicated Amazon as RS for authorship of book, and IMDB for television production. If there is a more RS for Zero Avenue needed, I can see what I can find. The program documented the West Coast cultural scene extensively in the 90s, covering many artists who went unnoticed in the mainstream media at the time. Is there doubt it existed? --Humble Servant (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The principle here is that writing for an august journal conveys no notability. Only if your work for this journal is then commented on by others, does that convey notability. There is no real doubt here that Jonathan Hagey has written for various publications, or that he has a Masters degree - however so do a great many people, and the bar is certainly higher than that. IMDB is a good indicator of notability (implying that further research will likely be fruitful), but it's just too unreliable to trust on its own. If the work for Zero Avenue or the Comics Journal was truly significant, then there will be further reviews of it, or citations to it. Did Dave Sim reply in turn? Did this piece become part of the corpus of cited commentary on Dave Sim?
 * I sympathise with the "Big Brother" problem. That's the other end of the problem here - tawdry celebrity might not count for much, but it leaves an obvious footprint and thus meets our simplistic bar trivially easily; 'slebs almost all qualify, pitiful though that situation is. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken about the celebs. To simplify the discussion of notability I'll focus on the Dave Sim article. That article is referenced and is a central piece that affects the views on Sims work to this day. It is mentioned in detail in his wikipedia entry and eventually lead to Sim to write a letter to his mailing list requesting the reader sign an online petition (it can be found on ipetitions but the site cannot be linked to from here) that has requests to sign it posted on other blogs. It is mentioned in discussion groups about Sim and his work Cerebus in the Cerebus Yahoo group; it has affected Sim's perspective of his own work so much that he wrote a rebuttal; is listed as seminal in his criticism as a misogynist on his Facebook page; is discussed in the Comic Book Resources Forum; and is mentioned by Douglas Wolk on page 290 of his book, "Reading comics: how graphic novels work and what they mean". I can source more if that would help.
 * As for Zero Avenue, I know there are numerous mentions of it on artists lists of press coverage. --Humble Servant (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non notable, what is found on the internet does not convey to enhance his notability. Eduemoni↑talk↓  16:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take another look at the additional sources cited for the Comics Journal article to see if they change your position.--Humble Servant (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The only likely real notability  is the claim to co-authorship of "the seminal pop culture program Zero Avenue". I'd like to see an article about that program first.   DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I didn't see notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from IMDb. SwisterTwister  talk  19:43, 16 August 2011 (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.