Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin John Hewitt


 * 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. Tone 07:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Kevin John Hewitt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prod'd this with the following explanation: "Despite the Telegraph obit, and the interesting job, there isn't really a claim to notability, and I can find no other sources with the exception of one website that is clearly a mirror of this very page." However I then realised it was previously prod'd (by an IP) and de-prod'd (by ) back in 2011, so bringing this here instead.

To add to my comment in quote marks above, in response to the original de-prod explanation, I don't see anything even in the obituary that indicates notability. It's a fairly brief summary of a career that is certainly interesting and unusual by most standards, but doesn't seem notable as such. Hugsyrup 14:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As I said back in 2011,"seems notable to me based on the ref. First look for other sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE. ". This cannot be really kept in mainspace unless additional sources can be found . There's no point in draftifying if nobody is around who wants to work on it. A preliminary check shows some possible director sources, not online; British newspapers would also be a possiility.  DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obituary in a major newspaper has always equalled notability on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can find no policy stating that merely having an obituary in a major newspaper = automatic notability. On the contrary, policy states "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources...". I have been unable to find any other significant coverage of this individual. Hugsyrup 16:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There may not be a policy, but it is still an established practice to keep anyone who has an obituary in a major national newspaper. This has been accepted many times at AfD. After all, if a major national newspaper considers someone notable, when they publish obituaries far more selectively than we have biographical articles, who are Wikipedia to not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This supposed "established practice" is unsupported by policy or guideline. I would agree that in the vast majority of cases, where there is an obit in a major national newspaper, then there would almost always be additional coverage elsewhere. But this does not seem to be the case here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is, however, supported by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies are nothing more than a collection of established practices that are supported by consensus. Anyone is free to claim that anything is 'established practice', and 'supported by consensus', but if it's somehow not made it into any of our many, many notability policies, then I'm fairly comfortable with ignoring it, particularly when it directly contradicts what actually is written in the WP:GNGs. Hugsyrup 10:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because a consensus is not written into a policy does not make it any less of a consensus. Wikipedia is not bound by set rules. It has been held many times at AfD that an proper obit in a major newspaper is sufficient for notability. That equals consensus. Whether you want to ignore consensus or not is pretty irrelevant. And people do not get obits in major national newspapers out of the blue. The staff don't think, oh, let's just run an obit on this completely non-notable person because we feel like it today. They run obits on them because they are already notable. They run obits on a far, far smaller percentage of people than we have articles for. That should be a pretty fair indicator that a person is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Just because a consensus is not written into a policy does not make it any less of a consensus." Actually, I think it does. Policy is an established consensus by a large number of editors, over a substantial period, with lots of people weighing in, debating it, and fine-tuning it. Changing it usually requires considerable debate and will attract numerous points of view. It can be found in clearly labelled locations, I can review exactly what it says, and if needs be I can directly challenge it and suggest changes to it. Compare that to a supposed consensus based on how some AFDs have been closed in the past. We don't know how many editors contributed to those, or how many other AFDs may have had an entirely contradictory outcome. All we do know is that no one seemed to think it was important enough to write it into any actual policy pages. I'd compare it to the difference between the constitution, and a few results in a lower court. I'm not saying it's not real, it's just not a particularly good argument.
 * "The staff don't think, oh, let's just run an obit on this completely non-notable person because we feel like it today." Well maybe not, but they sure do think "let's run an obit on this essentially unknown but interesting person with a peculiar life story that our readers will enjoy." The standards for a Telegraph obit and the standards for a Wikipedia article are not the same, and assuming that what is good enough for a Telegraph obit editor is good enough for us is flawed reasoning, particularly given the total lack of any other claims to notability. Hugsyrup 11:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I use the phrase "ill-considered" below, but perhaps "a quirky leaven to the obituary content required of a newspaper of record" might have been a kinder description. William Avery (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Lacks substantial coverage for multiple, independent, reliable sources, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I maintain that multiple is a good thing. Unfortunately, I cannot find anything other than the one obituary.  If there's any other coverage, contemporary throughout this person's life, in histories of circuses, or otherwise, I cannot find it; nor is it cited in the article. Uncle G (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Ample time has been given for "coverage in multiple published secondary sources" to emerge. The Telegraph's decision to run an obit was perhaps ill-considered. William Avery (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the obituary thing may have one been consensus, but consensus can change. Considering that this consensus in general contributes to more articles on people in Britain and fewer on people in Ghana, I oppose it. Where is the obituary on Billy Johnson (Mormon), who clearly by any measure is notable. If you find one, I may reconsider such rules, till then I say this police sidelines Ghanaians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever read. How on earth would considering someone as notable because they have an obituary in a national newspaper in one country have any relevance to someone's notability in another? And does no Ghanaian newspaper run obituaries? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2019 (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.