Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Healey (autism activist)


 * 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) 16:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Healey (autism activist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The independent third party sources provided there seems to be trivial coverages such as the celebrity/Twitter backed anti-bullying campaign, meeting the Queen and the Olympic torch relay and not serious enough to make up any real forms of notability. Some of the sources provided no longer exist but I am doubtful they anything third party and independent to be useful.

Taking those rotten sources away, this leaves an article without anything useful to make up an article as the evidence of notability provided does not hint anywhere further than outside his hometown. This article fall short of WP:BIO in this current state. Donnie Park (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. User has a Twitter account @Kevin_Healey and has asked his followers to vote to keep his page. Much of information is old and is either connected to the subject or seems to be close to the subject. Subject did not win an award, this type of award is given to an organisation and not an individual. Lucylivescot (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2015 • Lucylivescot has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * looks like a personal attack on Kevin from this first user, whom requested a deletion - page taken down, Kevin has won the Queens Award the first autism charity in the UK, service user led, is an award winning campaigner, and the sources still do exists, and its not just his home town he has won national awards, — 81.108.171.188 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:29, 2 November 2015‎ (UTC).
 * Personal attack? Who is he? I don't know this person at all, there are people who gets these achievements and do they get Wikipedia articles. You can nominate all you can but those who think they can get away, WP:SPA applies to nominators because I'll be checking the history from time to time. Donnie Park (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Further comment. As notified by a nominator above, we have to be on a full WP:SPA alert here, funny that somebody seem to care about his own Wikipedia page. Donnie Park (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Who are you, Donnie Park, and why so adamant if not vitriolic? There is no doubt in my mind that it IS a personal, trollish attack. Kevin Healey's interest and actions aren't even in your listed areas of interest.  I'm not in Kevin's home town and have interacted with him for months now.  He and his book have inspired me and my nephew with Asperger's.  What benefit would deleting the page have except a very personal and tiny-minded ego stroke for yourself?  I'd suggest that you live up to your tag-line and get a life.  — 109.147.251.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC).
 * Whoa, why be personal? Why do you have to think an AfD is an attack? If you think he is notable, why don't you sort the article out yourself and namecalling standard editors a troll and wishing karma up against them won't help either, especially from a so-called anti-bullying campaigner. Donnie Park (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Subject has posted asking for Twitter users to vote for his article in order to retain it > https://twitter.com/kevin_healey/status/661317156483801091 Lucylivescot (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC) • Lucylivescot has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * How can we stop wiki from removing this, Kevin doesn't need this, it's a personal attack.  — Angiec2015 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC).


 * This subject continues to claim page was up for 8 years. Created on 21/8/2014. User tweeting continually asking for people to edit his page https://twitter.com/kevin_healey/status/661328852053008384 Lucylivescot (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC) • Lucylivescot has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Its a sad fact, somebody getting upset over his own Wikipedia page. Donnie Park (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Donnie Park I tried to raise for speedy delete but fell due to open AfD Lucylivescot (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC) • Lucylivescot has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Because it isn't needed as it was AfD'd (you can use AfD, WP:PROD or CSD) but thanks anyway. Donnie Park (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is obviously wrong to delete this page.
 * 1- "Taking the sources away, this leaves an article without anything useful as his notability does not go anywhere further than outside his hometown." This statement is false. Kevin Healey's notability is far wider than his hometown.
 * 2- Kevin Healey is notable for his campaign against internet bullying. Which is supported by many people, over a large geographical area, and not limited to Autism. It is acceptable for him to mention the attempt to delete his Wikipedia page on Twitter. — Standmain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
 * This is not the point, the point is does this article meet the guidelines required for notability as its in a terrible state. Plus most of these claims are self-published like his website and autobiography which takes the notability away and the national coverage he has such as Daily Mail are trivial mentions, so that solely leaves his notability in terms of Wikipedia standard within his home area and anybody with a story can contribute to a local newspaper. Donnie Park (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Donnie Park (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the page is in need of improvement in being more biographical and ensuring neutral point of view but it feels like the notablility guidelines are being met.
 * I would disagree that the Daily Mail article constitutes a trivial mention - as stated in the guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material".  Kevin Healey is mentioned and features throughout the article even though more photo space is given over to celebrities.  Whilst it could be argued either way that the main topic was the celebrity support or the main topic was his campaign I don't see even the latter case equating to a trivial mention.
 * It is also stated that much of the information is "old" however the guidelines also tell us that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." So it seems to me that over time signifcant coverage has been given to the subject. Pstansbu (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to say he isn't overall not notable but it did not appear to be when I nominated it or aside Daily Mail, his third party coverage provided seems restricted to within Staffordshire. In the latest edit, he really should be thankful for In actu (Guerillero) for doing the job for him but Healey himself mounting a twitter hate campaign against me in between this and the nomination doesn't help at all. Donnie Park (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a lot of ad homimen commentary form all sides around this topic (on wikipedia and off it) - generally not helpful. Also I haven't tracked back through all earlier versions of the page - in its current state it feels in need of improvement rather than deletion.Pstansbu (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pre-In actu version, I could had helped but he have bred one angry Wikipedian out there. Donnie Park (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There are potential copyright problems with this article --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have spent a couple of hours bringing this article up to Wikipedia standards, including reference formatting, what is (and isn't) allowed under external links, rephrasing some plagiarism that was previously present, and, most importantly, adding sources to establish Kevin Healey's notability.
 * ‣ For the benefit of newcomers to Wikipedia deletion discussions, I would like to point out that Wikipedia holds all articles to a notability standard (legalese version here) which can be summed up as saying every Wikipedia article must show that there has been significant coverage of its subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage means more than one or two sources, and more than a sentence or two in each one; reliable sources are defined as publications with editorial control and fact-checking, such as newspapers, magazines, TV news, and some book publishers; and independent means neither the subject's own website or book, nor the websites of organizations to which they belong, nor even interviews with the subject of a Wikipedia article, can establish that person's notability as Wikipedia defines notability.
 * ‣ For the benefit of my fellow experienced editors, I would direct your attention to the Daily Mail article (which is clearly not a "trivial mention" if you read the entire article), the ITV coverage (the video is ITV content, not the documentary itself), the two BBC News articles, and this article in The Sentinel, all of which are properly cited in the article under discussion. I agree that Healey's notability was questionable before, but I argue that it is now well-established. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 12:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This Healey person should thank you for this; in between he himself mounted a hate campaign against me, describing it a personal vendetta and not distinguishing the difference between a Wikipedia editor and his regular trolls (if there is any evidence), rather than doing something about it. Donnie Park (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Nice to see you outside the context of DYK review. I'm sorry you feel attacked for having nominated this article for deletion. I can see how to people unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies it may have looked like just another attempt at harassment of Mr Healey, given his history of being the victim of cyber-bullying (and as that history has been reported by reliable sources, as Wikipedia editors we have no business questioning it). It's perfectly reasonable for people who are not Wikipedia editors not to understand how our notability standard works. Speaking of which, have you had a chance to re-evaluate his notability based on the sources I added to the article? — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 13:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I going to get an apology from for his actions first as it was him who triggered the hate campaign via social media? He think he can walk over anybody but I won't let him walk over me. I'm not apologizing unless he apologize first because he caused me to react that way. Donnie Park (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think we should keep discussion of who owes an apology to whom off this page, which is properly about the status of the article only. My talk page has worked as a neutral space for the two of you to air your grievances thus far. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 13:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: The edits made since my previous comments have addressed the concerns I had.Pstansbu (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Despite the edits, I don't see what makes him notable, or different from the thousands of activists out there. Zebras234 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with your assertion that he is no different from thousands of other activists and I have no doubt there are also many activists (probably still in the thousands) who would meet the notability criteria even more clearly than Kevin. This serves to highlight one of the great things about Wikipedia - unlike with print media we no longer have to be relative and selective to contain the publication to a certain size or length.   Therefore no is no concept of ranking or saying a person with a Wikipedia page is more worthy than one without - anybody who meets the specific Wikipedia criterion for notability (summed up neatly in an earlier post) can be included.  So this is all we are considering is this case.Pstansbu (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am looking at this from a completely objective standpoint. There are no personal attacks here, I'm just stating the facts as I see them and applying the guidelines. Rayman60 (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not consider anything here notable. Being invited to a garden party and chinwagging with queenie may be an honour, but many people have done it throughout her reign, some truly notable and worthy of articles, others not. Similarly, bearing the torch must've been a great honour, but in itself does not make the subject automatically notable. The book is as close to being self published as possible, and has not generated much hype. The Staffordshire and North Staffordshire groups seem to me regional groups with little national coverage or influence. There are many regions and many conditions, and they do not to me confer the status of notability. The one thing that did impress me was the number of Twitter followers, which at over 100,000 does indicate a following if all are genuine, however other platforms (such as YouTube) do not replicate the same level of success. I do not consider someone notable just because their tweets are picked up by a large following. And the final point on notability, and perhaps the most significant is: if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. It seems the DM article only attracted attention because of the famous names attached to it. There have been a couple of BBC news stories but they are regional ones, and finally an ITV/ITN video. Overall this does not seem to me anywhere near the significant level of coverage needed to justify a page here. Some of his charity work is good, but there are many, many tireless campaigners and charity administrators who get some recognition from within their own communities, and occasionally get mentioned in the press etc but would never warrant an article on here. I believe this is the same with this subject.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep WP:HEY (see news search ), and kudos to User:GrammarFascist for bringing this article up to snuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Google news search mentioned just above gets this over the line on notability - and by a long way. Footy Freak7 (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep Kevin Healey is a well-known figure who has done notable things, such as appearing in newspapers and meeting the PM. He is a serious campaigner whose campaign has recieved coverage in third-party sources, therefore making him notable as per the guidelines. RailwayScientist (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: HEY LOOK EVEN MORE SOURCES All have of course been added to the article as citations backing content in the article. Will those in favor of deletion now try to claim that The Independent, Metro or Sky News are "local" and thus somehow don't count either? Or perhaps the fact a celebrity is mentioned in one article will be taken to mean that the coverage of Healey in it doesn't count? Notability isn't about whether we think reliable sources should have covered a subject (and it's clear from their arguments that some of those advocating to delete feel media outlets shouldn't have covered Kevin Healey); it's about whether in fact reliable sources did cover the subject. And they have. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 17:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Independent
 * Metro
 * Sky News (as reported in The Sentinel)
 * Strong Keep: According to Wikipedia’s policy, WP:GNG, which states that “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list,” the subject of the article does meet the notability criteria.Pixarh (talk) 14:54, 18 November 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.