Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Hackett


 * 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 redirect to Ditch the Label. After appropriately weighing votes, it was clear only a small minority of participants felt a standalone article was appropriate at this time. The history is there if anyone wants to work on a merge. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Liam Hackett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is poorly referenced, clearing self serving, arguably extremely premature. Article is highly padded out with useless filler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I am completing this nomination of behalf of the above IP user, using the rationale provided on WT:AFD. I have no opinion. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only notable in connection with Ditch the Label, which already has an article. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agreed, does not need a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.249.71 (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Subject is notable as own entity with specific attention to academic commentary on bullying policy and resolution. There are less notable subjects on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.239.202 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 7 May 2013  — 109.144.239.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a keep reason, particularly for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subject is one of many "experts" on bullying, and not a particualrly prominent one. As said above, he is notable only in connection with Ditch the Label, which already has an article. The only separate issue in this article seems to be the sentence "He also manages the Brighton based digital marketing and brand identity agency Hackett & Tiger" which is purely promotional of a commercial outfit. Emeraude (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (or perhaps merge into Ditch the Label if there's anything worth keeping). The only web search result I've found of any significance is this HuffPo article which in my opinion is insufficient. All other rssults I've found are either non-independent or just routine, passing mentions. Hence fails WP:GNG. Oh and, as a Brightonian, I've never heard of him.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I disagree, it is normal that he has a very close connection to the organisation Ditch the Label, since he's the founder, ALSO, the only exposure of him (Liam Hackett) to public is only through Ditch the Label. Concerning about the web search, there are actually more than just this HuffPo article, there are still some good sources listed in 'References'. I find the article serves enough information about Liam Hackett, there arent any additional or non-cited information about him BUT those that has been gathered from all the sites listed under 'References'. Concerning about the line "He also manages the Brighton based digital marketing and brand identity agency Hackett & Tiger" yes, its kinda promotional so I will remove the line. The reason behind me adding 'Hackett & Tiger' into the article is because I wanted to provide more information to the article for the public to read about him, not for commercial purpose, also the info about Hackett & Tiger is also in some of the links/sites given in the reference list. Anyway, I think the article should be kept, cause the organisation is improving which also means more exposure for Liam Hackett and DTL and this can lead to more info. Nicholance (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Anyway, I think the article should be kept, cause the organisation is improving which also means more exposure for Liam Hackett and DTL and this can lead to more info" - BLPs have to be good articles in the present, not in the WP:POTENTIAL future. The proper thing to do with a badly-sourced BLP is delete it without prejudice; claiming it should be kept because there might be good sources later is actually an admission that the sources are bad, and that it should therefore be deleted - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per above. As concerns WP:ACADEMIC, massively short.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. References to subject are from high quality sources, each published very recently. At least bordering notable enough and one could assume increasingly so.  WP:POTENTIAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.236.94 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)  — 94.193.236.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * When WP:POTENTIAL conflicts with WP:BLP, BLP wins - a badly-sourced BLP should be deleted until there are good enough sources. "It could be a good article one day!" is not in any way sufficient to keep a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Might I suggest that more content is added to the article? I am aware of who the subject is and do know that he has a bold history of online social media activism. Perhaps something about his online presence could be added? Also found this article - is this of any use? http://www.attitude.co.uk/viewers/viewcontent.aspx?contentid=2891&catid=comment&subcatid=general_news&longtitle=INTRODUCING%3A+DITCH+THE+LABEL Agree with the above comments that article is borderline but it seems subject is gaining increased notoriety, especially over the past few months. I think he is notable of a page although do feel that it needs expanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.68 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But the title of that piece is "INTRODUCING: DITCH THE LABEL" (original caps). OK, it says a lot (probably too much given the title) about Hackett, but it's basically a source for the Ditch the Label article! The same is true for the other sources: they refer primarily to bullying or to the charity, with the odd quote from Hackett which he has only made because he is.... leader of the charity.Nicholance says, correctly, that "the only exposure of him (Liam Hackett) to public is only through Ditch the Label". In other words, he has no notability beyond the charity. Emeraude (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Redirect - First, let me point out something to the people voting that this is by consensus, not by !vote count. There could be 10 delete votes and 1 keep vote and the rationale from the keep vote could be enough to keep the article (or vice versa). With that in mind, I would suggest coming up with policy based reasons to support your !vote. For me, I do not see this persons being notable independent of the nonprofit group that he founded. The references in the article are about the organziation, not him, and only mention him as part of the organization. While there is WP:SIGCOV about the organization, there isn't any for him. I would consider them passing mentions and notability is not WP:INHERENT. Also, some of the sources are the same as they talk about a study released by the organization, but for notability they can only be counted 1 time as they are references about the same report. Looks like notability masking and as a stand alone article, there is not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. As such, article fails general notability guidelines and should be deleted. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ditch the Label (which reads like a press release itself, but anyway). And that photo is just lacking lens flare and rainbows - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completely disagree about the photo. It would look perfect for an album cover.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The choices on the table, it seems to me, are either Keep or Merge to Ditch the Label. It does seem that this is a public figure as a leading anti-bullying activist. See, for example, THIS PIECE from Huffington Post, by Bibek Bhandari, "Liam Hackett: 'IIt Does Get Better.'" Carrite (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think I could go with a redirect, but not a keep. I will change my !vote above. The Huffington Post piece is simply a recreation of all of the other articles and doesn't really address anything other than he was bullied in school and that he founded the organization. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above, he is NOT a public figure. Just because he was bullied and has talked about it does not mean that he is a public figure. He does not merit his own page. Ditch The Label however does.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.1.14 (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, the article may be short but it does provide sufficient information about him. It gives me information that I would like to know about him as the article acts very well as the centre of providing information. I think that the article should not be merged with the orgnisation as it may cause some minor confusion. Personal thoughts. He can pass as being a notable person though, that's why I'm here anyway. 113.23.129.7 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for the !vote. Do you have any policy based (Wikipedia policy that is) reasons to keep the article? Causing confusion would not necessarily be a reason to keep the article. There is more than enough information about him under the organization article. Not sure a standalone article is needed.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ditch the Label. The article on Liam Hackett has no third-party references. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)
 * Redirect  as suggested. The organization is more notable than he is--there are a few third party sources for it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. In reference to the above 'Strong Keep'. This is tragic! Just because someone is the founder of something does not mean that they should have their own page! "the only exposure of him (Liam Hackett) to public is only through Ditch the Label. " So why keep it if it's the ONLY thing? Greater people who have achieved more have not got wikipedia pages? This is incredibly self serving and I would not be surprised if he made the page himself. Why should the public read about him? Ditch The Label should be read about NOT him. Moreover, the latest addition of 'Liam has been INVITED to write papers' ... It's against wikipedia's guidelines to write about stuff (i.e. papers) that don't exist yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.1.14 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 11 May 2013  — 2.25.1.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep – I originally reviewed the article and thought at the time that Liam Hackett passed the notability test because of references in Huffington Post and Pink News and the fact that he was interviewed on Radio 1, which implies that someone at the BBC thought he was a suitable spokesperson on the subject of bullying for national radio. Yes, he's synonymous with and notable because of the organisation he founded, but the same could be said of Michele Elliott (Kidscape) and Camila Batmanghelidjh (Kids Company) – albeit they are more established figures. I think WP:POTENTIAL does come into this and I don't really understand the argument (or the source) that WP:BLP bests that in this case, so I'd welcome clarification of that point. There is plenty that could be done to improve the page and address the many valid concerns expressed – for instance, removing all links to his marketing company and paring back hard. Deletion seems the nuclear option and Wikipedia does say on the subject of deletion that if a page can be improved this should be solved through regular editing. Is this really such a basket case that it can't be remediated through judicious editing? Finally, I don't think the points about the choice of picture have particular weight or relevance. Libby norman (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Duplicate vote struck. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Comment to above I believe that were you to trim this article back you'd be best with one line: "Liam Hackett founded Ditch the Label". That's all you would have. Shall I go about making this change? Comments about him being bullied offer no use to the wikipedia community. Nor does "invited to write essays".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.1.14 (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Duplicate vote struck. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Comment: now trimmed back to the facts it barely seems worth keeping.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.1.14 (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect Not seeing a significant justification for why the article qualifies for notability now. I agree there could be potential in the future, but at the current time the bullying is the cause for this charity to be founded and would be better served under the Ditch the Label article.  No objections to significant development of the BLP aspects in the future target being the justification for a WP:SPINOUT that removes the redirect, but people are probably going to be searching the name in the context of the charity. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (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.