Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Christian


 * 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   no consensus. It is an editorial decision whether to merge into an article on the prank and its consequences, which could certainly be split out from its current location. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mike Christian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small-time local disc jockey, tagged as possibly non-notable for three years. Subject isn't notable as a DJ - the article has had only one ref for most of its existence, which merely mentions his name in a list of other DJs. Recently-added refs only mention him within the context of a recent Kate Middleton-related hoaxing incident, which also fails to establish notability (WP:BLP1E). --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC) --- Response --- Disagree. This guy while somewhat notable in Australia before the hoaxing incident, the hoaxing incident is actually a rather massive-scale incident that people will be interested to read about. Unfortunately for this pair of hosts, they are now internationally infamous/notorious for the prank which was big enough to put a black mark on the pregnancy of the British Royal family. Regardless of his level of fame before the recent hoax, he is now infamous.

FURTHERMORE, I noticed your edit to the article removing the word "Controversial" and stating it was a pov term. In fact my previous addition to the article received a warning from Altered Walter: (Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Mike Christian. (TW))

So either it is controversial by moderator standard, or it isn't? 203.23.210.123 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what you're getting at, but I think the word "controversial" was being used in two different ways: one refers to the information that you added (which was controversial, mostly due to being unsourced at first), while the other usage was referring to the prank itself. I removed that descriptor because I didn't think it added much, it's a bit of a loaded term, and it's generally a word to avoid. Your other edits, which were well-referenced, have been left mostly intact. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. 203.23.210.123 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. No reliable secondary sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable secondary sources? One of the sources was a video of the CEO of Hospital himself making an announcement about the issue. A quick search on google will provide a billion results for it. Do you expect to find something more reliable about the issue in a printed encyclopedia? 203.23.210.123 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many reliable sources establishing notability of "the issue", but I cannot find anything showing the notability of Mike Christian outside of this. This article is not about "the issue" it is about Mr. Christian, and he isn't independently notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * given he is a DJ (or was...) for a top rating Australian radio station, with a track record in the Australian radio industry, he is very much notable. Btw, can't be arsed logging in, just pointing ou the absurdity of your assertion!). - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep At this point world-wide coverage, including coverage for multiple events, not just this latest prank. Every news site I've seen has prominent sources.  DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Especially with the latest tragic turn in this situation. I think notability has been established now.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 04:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * isn't a WP:BLP concern to link the death with this individual? The event is notable but I don't see how he is for one event. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I first heard about this from TV on in fast food joint midnight Friday US ET. I didn't know who the people involved were, and it seemed important enough (after the purported suicide by the victim) that there should be a listing about who these people were SOMEWHERE. I came to Wikipedia to look it up, and was surprised that it was being discussed for deletion. I would keep it for a week, just to see how it plays out, but really, it could be part of a sea change in how we see pranking as "a bit of harmless fun," or something potentially dangerour. I really think the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.30.244 (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC) I should have signed in for this. Sorry. I'll try to do better in future. (User: FrRob)


 * Keep I do not like what has happened, but the issue here resolves to free speech and to producing and maintaining an historical record . — Preceding unsigned comment added by GEEKOZ (talk • contribs) 14:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability has been established for the prank, but not for the pranksters. I can't see notability established here per WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER, and can only find one mention of him online in WP:Reliable sources apart from the current flurry of mentions of his name (and that of the other DJ involved) in connection with this prank. DGG and AutomaticStrikeout: Wouldn't it be better to create an article about the prank? Altered Walter (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think that there is any doubt as to the notability of the prank. But the prank itself is not what this article is about. It is about one of the pranksters, who is completely non-notable outside of the prank. Notability is not inherited. I hope that those with the opinion to keep will reconsider, or at the very least, consider a merge into the main article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The "prank" may be notable, the perpetrator certainly is not (WP:ONEEVENT). WWGB (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of the prank, which absolutely makes him now notable (see this as an example of an article about him, not just the prank), he was hosting a major radio show on a major radio network, (so not BLP1E and not a "small-time local DJ".  He broadcasts to the little town called "Sydney"!) which almost certainly would make him the subject of multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources, if not now, but as the cycle of publicity and cross promotion works in the media.  He'd been in that position for about a week before the prank call, so the previously applied notability tag may have been correct beforehand, but he is clearly notable now. The-Pope (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, The-Pope: he was possibly not notable before, but is definitely notable now for this WP:ONEEVENT? The article you cite above talks mainly about the prank, and that he annoyed someone on a plane by playing the harmonica. I agree that a DJ at a major station in a large cite should almost certainly be the subject of multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but I've found almost nothing about him online apart from coverage of the prank. So shouldn't this be merged to 2Day FM, or both merged to a new article about the prank? If significant pre-prank coverage of him is there and I've simply missed it, then I'd vote to keep. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * pope "almost certainly would make him the subject of multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources," please provide evidence of coverage about him not relating to this controversy. LibStar (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He was in the job for only a week before the prank call so discounting any coverage post the call is illogical and missing the point. He has now been the subject of significant coverage, as per the link I provided above. The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Then WP:BLP1E applies, he is only notable because of this stunt. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably a first time a BLP1E has been claimed for a week old event for a three year old article. 2 years ago, when I added the first ref for the article, I made the comment "for a high rating dj, he's got virtually no coverage." I wonder if his lack of coverage (actually it's a lack of google coverage) is real or a function of his common/miscellaneous names?  Do you search for Mike Christian, Michael Christian (but filter out the ex-Collingwood footballer who's now a TV/Radio sports commentator), Nollsy or MC (which is virtually impossible to search for online)?  Why would you exclude detailed biographical articles in major newspapers, solely because they postdate the prank? (here's another one, by the way. The-Pope (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very simple. 1. Syndicated broadcaster. 2. International scandal. Doesn't meet deletion criteria at all. --Tubusy (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the notability criteria by a mile. Nationally syndicated broadcaster + recent media furore = not a BLP1E. -- Chronulator (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There's nothing in the article saying that the show is nationally syndicated, so that's news to me. But per Tubusy and Chronulator's comments above, I searched and found a reliable source confirming it (dated tomorrow 11 Dec, for some reason).  That for me proves notability: I'll add it to the article. Altered Walter (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Amazingly poor time to nominate for deletion given everything that's happening. Quis separabit?  19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a better time to nominate since it hadn't already been done. -- No  unique  names  02:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Question can somebody, anybody, point to a source that would make him notable outside this event? Something like a major newspaper interviewing him prior to all this? Does anyone have anything like that? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  23:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * he is a nationally broadcast radio announcer. That is borderline notable. Not everything is online and his name and nickname make online searching difficult. Why the requirement of being interviewed before this event? He is the sum product of all of his jobs and incidents. The-Pope (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not good enough, without sources proving notability outside this event, we cant go on what we dont have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP1E -- No unique  names  02:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has been there for over three years. It seems perverse to nominate it or deletion precisely when the subject has become much more notable, even if only temporatily, and further relevant information may well emerge. Keep now, and reconsider in a few months' time when the hoax has left the headlines. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This goes into WP:CRYSTAL though, saying that "further relevant information may well emerge" if thats the case why not keep the info about Mike Christian in context and when this additional info comes forward showing he is notable outside this event, then we remake the stand alone article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect to Hot30 Countdown per WP:BLP1E, what other thing has this person been a part in other than this hoax? I understand a section in the Main article for the DJ's but dont see the need for a seperate article here when the article just talks about his notability for this one thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to redirect as the name is a likely search term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * except he was on the hot 30 countdown for only one week, for the previous few years, as per the reliable sources in the article from both before and after the prank call, he was on other radio shows in Melbourne and Perth. The-Pope (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per SamuelTheGhost. Wikipeterproject (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Ultimately this debate boils down to two positions. One that he was notable before the hoax as a host on a nationally syndicated radio show and the other only bring notable for one event. His career before, despite being on a big show, did not seem to make him a celebrity as he was only the host for one week. As a result I do not feel he meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE (as there is no policy for hosts). Mkdw talk 10:33, 17 December 2012 (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.