Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hill


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus (note that there's nothing stopping someone subsequently merging this, which was a fairly popular choice)   Proto    ||    type    10:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Hill
The article seems to be meaningless; it refers to an individual but there is little or no context given PaddyMatthews 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to be a joke article, like the similar article I found for Michael Hill (21st century composer) and nominated for deletion below. --Ataricodfish 03:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)  Weak delete  My initial Google searches found nothing, although having read the below and now finding the Guiness Book note here, it's obviously not a joke article.  That having been said, I still don't know if I consider it notable, despite the Guiness record, so my vote for delete remains, however weakly. --Ataricodfish 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - seems to be un-verifiable WP:V.-- blue 520  04:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per PaddyMatthews & Tyrenius, and clean up (remove dessert reference).-- blue 520  16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not convinced that the place for this is in an article of its own - it might make more sense to refer it in the articles on Penetrating head injury or the Phineas Gage case. PaddyMatthews 16:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point Merge into Penetrating head injury or the Phineas Gage as both have content (and positions) that are sutable.-- blue 520  16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Penetrating head injury doesn't have the right tone to include it, and Phineas Gage is about a specific individual. I have put "See also" links between the articles, so anyone interested can get to the other pages. Now it is verified, it might be neater to leave things as they are. It was after all the lack of verification that was the initial problem. I've also removed "dessert", which seems to have been written in error. Tyrenius 17:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Tyrenius, I'd lean more towards merging it into the Phineas Gage article myself. If you look at the Similar cases section of the Gage article, there are a series of cases there similar to Hill's. The most notable thing about Hill's case is the size of the knife; as far as I can see he's not any more notable in his own right (or as a medical phenomenon) than the other cases mentioned in the Gage article. PaddyMatthews 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose notable as world record holder. I don't have a strong opinion either way on keep or merge. Tyrenius 17:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * comment a different Michael Hill is a prominent NZ businessman and entreprenuer who deserves an article.  BL Lacertae  -  kiss the lizard  04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- must be a joke article :: Colin Keigher 05:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. "This article is about the dessert"? Obvious joke article. WarpstarRider 06:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. It now appears the subject of the article is a real person, not a joke. Even so, I'm still doubting the notability of the person himself, despite the world record. WarpstarRider 07:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Slendidlydelicious 08:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn, unverifiable. --Ter e nce Ong 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Doing a Google, there is verification of sorts : . Whether the individual is worthy of an article for that alone is another matter. PaddyMatthews 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I fail to see how the article is a "joke article", "nn" (not notable) and "unverifiable" when a google search for "Michael Hill" + knife, brings up as the second result Guinness World Records, which states:
 * Largest Object Removed From Human Skull
 * The largest object removed from a human skull is a 20.32-cm (8-inch) survival knife, which was plunged into the head of 41-year-old Michael Hill on April 25, 1998. Michael survived the ordeal and the next day astonished doctors by functioning normally, although it was soon clear the knife had caused permanent damage to his memory and paralyzed his left hand. Looking back on the nightmare, the father-of-one says, "I didn't feel the pain initially and it was only when I was at the hospital that it hit me and I felt like my eyes were bulging out. I know people in worse shape than me now and so I consider myself lucky."

The first google result will get you an X-ray of the knife in the skull. I suggest that before voting on AfD it would be beneficial to make some research first. It is not beneficial to Wiki to "guess" whether an article is true or not. Tyrenius 15:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, this is a good examply why WP:W point 2 & 3 are nessary. As for the "guessing", I did try  Google (for example "Michael Hill" +attack +April 25, 1998) and seemed to cum up with nothing, which was one of the basis for my "seems to be un-verifiable" response. It just goes to show how the choice of target words can effect google.-- blue  520  16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that it should have been WP:V.-- blue 520  04:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done for the search. Understandable that you thought it was unverifiable in that case. Tyrenius 17:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tyrenius. --Saforrest 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into Phineas Gage. exolon 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and linkify Jordanmills 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. For great justice. 00:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; So is the article staying or is it not resolved yet?
 * The debate stays open for one week. Bearcat 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment When this article gets deleted please note that the creator moved the original "Michael Hill" article to "Michael Hill (Disambiguation)", so the disambig page can get moved back to where it belongs. Qutezuce 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved this article to a disambiguated title and moved the dab page back to the undisambiguated Michael Hill. I've also doublechecked; everything is correctly linked. Bearcat 01:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If he's in the Guinness Book of World Records, I'd be okay calling this a weak keep, although I can't particularly claim to be enthused about it. Bearcat 01:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because he is a significant case in neuroscience, like Phineas Gage. It's a stub at the moment, but could be filled out more. Davidgauntlett 19:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment;why did you move the article back to the disambiguation,since there are only two cases where there is an article,its easier to direct michael hill to one article,then at the top of that article the link to the other,like i did,what do you think?
 * The rule on Wikipedia is that your approach would only be permissible if your Michael Hill could honestly be said to be significantly more notable than any other person of the same name with an article. Since that clearly isn't the case, your Michael Hill does not get the undisambiguated title "Michael Hill". Bearcat 21:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * i dont mean nececerly this michael hill,but you couldnt apply it to the other michael hill either because there both not notable enough?192.30.202.14 21:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No...a disambiguation page at the main title is the appropriate solution in this kind of situation. Bearcat 01:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, the other Michael Hill article was deleted per its AfD nomination, so there's currently only this Michael Hill article active in Wikipedia. See here  for the AfD nomination showing delete.  I have updated the disambig page to remove the composer link. --Ataricodfish 17:48, 22 April 2006 (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.