Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Hutchison


 * 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. This is a fairly borderline decision. The main objections to the article is that the subject is not quite notable enough, as the sources are not reliable and/or do not discuss the subject significantly enough beyond trivial mentions. This objection has been challenged. On examining closely the sources, on the whole they are not directly dealing with the subject, but with other matters to which the subject is related (ie, they are about material he is selling, and he is mentioned in passing). However, there are, as pointed out in the discussion, mentions which go beyond the incidental, and which are interviews, such as the juxtapoz one, and the New Lenox Patch. However, also brought up was the local nature of the coverage. What is certain is that the article is verifiable, and that Kelly Hutchison does exist, and has gained some attention in local media for selling murderabilia. What is not certain is if the amount and quality and significance of the sources meet our inclusion criteria. Seeing arguments balanced on both sides, it's not the closer's role to take any one side; so, as the argument is balanced I can either take a count or close as no consensus. Given that the deletes are three, while the keeps are one, there is a clear consensus for deletion. However, given the amount of work the creator, Crystalh1982 has done on the article, I will WP:Userfy on request so Crystalh1982 can continue working on it, or merge the material into murderabilia as suggested during the discussion.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Kelly Hutchison

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: as pure copy/paste, promotional OR hagiography. Quis separabit? 11:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: I am the original author of this article and I worked very hard on it under the advice of a seasoned editor on Wiki that also wrote articles on visual artists. I am not affiliated with the artist, and I understand it has been edited by various others since it's creation, but I am familiar with the sources that the pages cites and know it is not a copied/pasted article.  It is not of my opinion that it displays information in a biased manner as all information is cited, however if there is something specific that would need to be changed I will volunteer to do so.  The page was not created for any promotional purposes.  If there's something there now that should be fixed along those lines I will volunteer to do so.Crystalh1982 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect to Murderabilia, possibly adding some content from these references. The article suffers from cite spam, unfortunately. There are no articles listed that are about the subject, although there are mentions. Some of the links, however, do not mention the person at all (e.g. #16, #21). Other cites are to blogs, individual web sites, etc., and no reliable sources have an article about the artist. In fact, the thrust of the articles is almost exclusively the phenomenon of "murderabilia". LaMona (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the full length article in juxtapoz counts as an article about him.©Geni (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that interviews may be considered primary sources and thus original research. See No_original_research I don't know how to know when they are not OR. LaMona (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment: @ Geni, I agree the full length article in juxtapoz counts as an article about him. @ Lamona, I disagree that the interview is considered primary research after reviewing cite note 3 mentioned above.  My understanding is that it would only apply to an "oral history interview", such as an interview about an accident that took place and referencing an interview from a witness.  I can see your point that perhaps the murderabilia info isn't valid within the artist page, however many articles mention personal information about the subjects, and I can see why someone may have thought to add it because it is a big part of his life/what influences him(#21 does mention the artist by the way).  However you claim that the murderabilia section is the main part of the page.  It is actually a section only titled "personal collection", the rest is about the artist himself, no?  As far as the individual web sites, blogs, etc.:  What about Thrillist Media Group?  They made upwards of 100 million in 2014 with more than 300 employees according to Wikipedia.  Per WP:BLPSPS "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control".  Therefore, just because it's a blog, doesn't mean it's not legit.  Also, Reference #2 may appear to just be a "personal website" but it's actually a local newspaper that is printed, and the articles just happen to be reposted in blog form online.  I also obtained a copy of Inked Magazine (Reference #12) and indeed the article does exist about him as listed - so although it's not available online for free I believe it's still a valid reference.  I also have for example, an article about him in print from San Diego City Beat that isn't on this reference list, and I'm not sure why local publications are not valid?  I really respect all of your opinions, and am trying to figure this out.  As I am sure you can understand, I do not want my hard work going to waste and again volunteer my help if something can be done to prevent deletion.Crystalh1982 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC) *Keep I'm satisfied by the number of sources. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC) -- delete comment by banned sockpuppet. Quis separabit? 01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: final relist. Nakon 02:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you to those that have relisted this in hopes of reaching a consensus, which I hope can happen soon.  I am very concerned about this article being deleted from Wiki and my offer still stands to help improve the article if it can be saved.  I noticed the link to sources above only searches for the artist's name which is a very common name, and while he still pops up first and in many entries, most artists are better found when adding additional search terms such as "artist", etc.  just a thought.  I am hoping others can weigh in here and express their opinions, and most importantly some ideas on how this article can be saved/ improved upon. I can't remember the shortcut to sign my name and it's not providing it on this mobile device so this is user crystalh1982 at your mercy, signing out, thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalh1982 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  02:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Delete a minor local celebrity in San Diego, with minor local coverage. Otherwise, "sources" in the article are related to the subject, or interested in selling his stuff, or reporting on murderabilia in general. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG, there's no "significant" coverage in whatever sources. Kraxler (talk) 14:52, 11 June 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.