Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Hollingsworth


 * 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, defaulted to keep. Things went too complicated in the discussion, let us just fix the fact that there is no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul Hollingsworth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a television journalist. Neither of the substantive claims of notability here, news anchor for a local television station and regional reporter for TSN, gets a person over WP:JOURNALIST in the absence of reliable sourcing — and for added bonus, the region he covers for TSN has no major league franchises in any sport to cover, thus leaving him mostly covering him things like QMJHL or practice squad hockey and opening up a very real question about how often his reportage actually gets onto SportsCentre. So this needs to be deleted if the referencing can't be beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep If having bestselling books is enough for WP:AUTHOR. The bio reports that two of his books have been national bestsellers in Canada, one of them a #1 bestseller for 3 months. As WP:JOURNALIST he fails per Tchaliburton, he passes for winning a Gemini award. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PR bios claim a lot of things that aren't actually an accurate reflection of the facts (e.g. a "bestselling" book that was only a bestseller in one bookstore in the author's own hometown and not on any of the national book sales charts that it takes to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, a "hit single" that got played twice on one radio station in the band's own hometown and never appeared on any of the IFPI-certified national pop charts that it takes to satisfy WP:NMUSIC, etc.) — so it's a reliable source which explicitly shows his book appearing on a national book sales chart that would get him over WP:AUTHOR for that claim, not a self-penned marketing bio on the website of his own employer. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Bio claimed national, so what we need is someone with an account at the Globe and Mail who can check the bestseller list for November 2010. If the archives go back that far. – Margin1522 (talk)
 * Keep. His bio states that he is a Gemini award winner. That should confer notability per WP:JOURNALIST #4, "has won significant critical attention". It also qualifies him per WP:ANYBIO #1, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Tchaliburton (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The claim that he won a Gemini Award has to actually be cited to a reliable source, not to his own marketing bio on the website of his own employer. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a cite for the 2003 Gemini Award for Best Live Sporting Event, 2003 World Junior Hockey Championship, as stated in the Bio. This page cites the names of the producers, but TSN apparently regards it as having been awarded to the entire team. I'm not familiar enough with the broadcasting industry to say whether this is a common practice, but it doesn't seem unreasonable. You often see the entire crew getting up on stage to accept these awards. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much that a reliable news network like CTV is going to lie about its employees. In any case, according to Metro News he won a Gemini in 2003. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter a whit whether CTV would or wouldn't lie about it — as his own employer, they're a primary source for information about him, and nobody but nobody ever but ever qualifies for a Wikipedia article on the basis of self-published or employer-published sources alone. As Margin1522 points out, there's a potential dichotomy between who the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television considers to be the winner of the award and who TSN wants to credit for it — but it's the ACCT's determination, not TSN's, that decides whether he's a winner of the award or just a hanger-on. Bearcat (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're getting primary sources and independent sources mixed up. A primary source would be a court transcript, public document or diary. The CTV site is actually a secondary source. But it's not independent, which is a whole other issue. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting anything confused. A court transcript, public document or diary is a kind of primary source, absolutely — but anything at all written by the topic of the article, or by other people with a direct affiliation (e.g. his own employer, his wife, etc.), is still a primary source no matter what format it's in. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're saying that non-independent sources are always primary. That's incorrect. See Party and person for some clarification. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television does not list him as a Gemini award winner. The fact that he worked on a sports program that won a Gemini award for two other people does not make him a Gemini award winner, nor does the fact that his employer claims he won -- the ACCT is the awards-giving body, and they should be the ones to say who the winners of their own awards are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the search feature working? I'm not getting any results for anything I try. I wanted to check who won for best sportscast in 2003. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment  We have no record from the ACCT of who won any of the Gemini awards. Those awards have been discontinued and replaced by the Canadian Screen Awards. Their page on past winners of that is here. As you can see, it's very sketchy. This is typical – awarding bodies usually don't post detailed records of past winners. What we do have is this list from a 3rd party site, awardsandwinners.com. By checking other years, we can see that the "Gemini Award for Best Live Sporting Event" was always given to producers. However, producers may have accepted it on behalf of the team. And it's entirely possible that this is an accepted practice within the industry, so that it's legitimate for Hollingsworth to claim to have won it. To check that, all we would have to do is find non-producers from other years who claim to have won the Gemini Award for Best Live Sporting Event. I haven't done it, but nobody has shown the opposite either, so as of now I am going with Tchaliburton's theory that Hollingsworth has a legitimate claim to have won this award. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is how to find the awards database: Go to http://www.academy.ca/Home and under "About the Academy", select "Awards Database". You will then be at http://www.academy.ca/About-the-Academy/Awards-Database and can select "Person", then click "Continue". (You may need a couple of attempts to get the radio button for "Person" to activate, but it can be done.) On the next screen you can run a search for "Hollingsworth" as the name to find, then click "Continue". You will find no results for him. (Also, I disagree with the idea that "awarding bodies usually don't post detailed records of past winners"; the better-established and better-organized ones do.) I have found the database to be working on and off today, so if it doesn't work now, try again a little later. I don't know why we would want to search for other non-winners who claim to have won the same award; I realize that Margin referred to "non-producers", but the inclusion criteria for the award could have varied from year to year and non-producers could have received the award in other years. But the question is whether Hollingsworth won the award, not whether any other non-producers did. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Has anyone checked the bestseller lists for his books? Tchaliburton (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried, but the only site I found was a database for publishers that requires a paid account. In principle it should be verifiable. About the Academy database, thanks, I missed that. But what that establishes is that the award went to the producers, which we knew already. The question is, is Hollingsworth's employer justified in saying that he won the award? I've proposed a test to check whether such claims are common. But even if they are common, that might not be good enough if we are going insist that his name has to be on the award. Anyway I haven't got time to do it today. Maybe later. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. It just occurred to me that if we're looking up information in primary source databases we may be getting into a case of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. But in any case, this reliable secondary source says "Hollingsworth, a Dartmouth resident, won a Gemini Award in 2003". Tchaliburton (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't help but think that we may be going about this all wrong if we're treating the official database of the awards-giving body as a primary source which we're not supposed to use as it would be considered original research, while relying on newspaper articles that contradict that database but in a vague way (i.e. doesn't say what category Hollingsworth won in, for what program, or who shared the award with him). But I can't find a policy that clearly indicates that we should rely on the ACCT database, even though personally I believe we should. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Checking the awarding organization's database of who it gave its awards to, in a case where we need verification of whether the subject is actually a winner of the award, is not original research — it's just verification. Original research is the extraction of interpretations not explicitly supported by the source — but checking the ACCT database for verification of a disputed fact is not "interpreting" anything. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 08:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The book is an 80-page children's book . There are now two editions out, the second presumably having been revised by the co-author . Hollingsworth's earlier book (also 80 pages, for the same publisher) "Brad Richards, a hockey story" has ISBN 1551096331. Neither of these books is available via Amazon, and I tried to find Canadian best-seller lists but came up zero. It could be that they aren't archived online. However, the publisher doesn't include any "best seller" talk around the book, and the 2nd edition is selling for CA3.99. Unless this Gemini award (which we cannot confirm) turns out to be something really big, I'm not seeing notability here. LaMona (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – Canada bestseller data is available at Booknet Canada, a for-pay database service, here. This page says "There is no public access to SalesData but we do have public resources and handle media requests." I will trying sending them a media request -- We are Wikipedia and need to know if this book was a bestseller. Since this discussion seems to have come down to two questions: 1) Did he write a bestseller? and 2) Did he get the Gemini award? I'm interested in this as a test case for verifying sources, as much for Hollingsworth himself. Anyway, in the meantime, I found this, which is a 50-minute video of Hollingsworth talking about his TV career and reading from Sidney Crosby. I would add it to the article, but unfortunately the article is currently under attack by an SPA and an IP who keep blanking the content. I don't have rollback rights. Could someone fix that? – Margin1522 (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you can go ahead and add whatever you need to add to the article. Several users have been reverting the blanking attacks on the page, and the article has been semi-protected as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: LaMona, his books are available on Amazon. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 07:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So they are available on CA Amazon, but US Amazon lists them as "out of stock." (And, BTW, US Amazon will list any book that is offered to it, regardless of availability. Many titles are "not currently available", both from Amazon and third-party sellers.) So I guess we now need to specify which Amazon we are referring to. I'll try to remember that. In the end, it shouldn't be a surprise that a book about a CA hockey player sells in CA but not the US. Unfortunately, it isn't easy from one country to see what another country sees on Amazon - same with Google. It changes radically from place to place. That makes our task here more difficult. LaMona (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how this relates to notability anyway. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 05:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Please note the notability guidelines make no provision for best seller status. It has been discussed but there is no consensus for it (many good reasons). However, WP:AUTHOR does say an author is notable if their works have been reviewed. And there are reviews. See Canadian Review of Materials;2/25/2011, Vol. 17 Issue 24, p15 and Quill & Quire;Jul2010, Vol. 76 Issue 6, p27 and Resource Links;Feb2007, Vol. 12 Issue 3, p49. There are probably more if anyone has access to Canadian research databases (newspapers, magazines etc). -- Green  C  15:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that reviews need to be substantial, and in neutral (e.g. non sales) publications. WP:AUTHOR specifies: "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The Canadian Review of Materials lists itself as an "all-volunteer online publication." I would mark that as non-RS. "Quill & Quire"'s about says: "Quill & Quire is the magazine of the Canadian book trade." So it is a trade publication. Not "independent." Plus, not knowing how extensive the review is, it could amount to no more than a notice of publication. (Note, a one-paragraph review, like those in Publisher's Weekly, to me is more of a description than a review. A literary review is much more than that. I know that others feel differently.) "Resource links" is a journal for Canadian literature for young people. That's all I can glean from that because it doesn't allow a search and gives virtually no free information on its web site. A substantial review in that journal might satisfy WP:AUTHOR, but it does say "multiple". LaMona (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quill & Quire is independent and widely recognized as the leading authority on Canadian books. I'm not sure why you think it isn't independent. As for the Canadian Review of Materials, it's also a highly respected publication. It's written by volunteers but they are volunteers who are teachers, professors and librarians with expertise in children's books. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And it has an editorial board. It's not self published. -- Green  C  18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * LaMona, these sources are commonly used on Wikipedia and are considered reliable. They are independently published reviews with no connection to the author. They are not 'sales publications' (unless you believe every review is marketing unless it's in the New York Times). "Substantial review" is incorrect, that's an arbitrary value judgement. The word "substantial" does not appear in AUTHOR. We regularly accept Publisher's Weekly and those types of reviews as evidence of notability. -- Green  C  18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference between independent and not has to do with the industry and audience that is served. A publishing trade journal exists to promote sales. That's its role. It serves the companies and people who are publishing and selling. The New York Times has a different audience and different role - it not only does not exist to promote sales, it has been known to give bad reviews to books, to theater, to art shows, thus possibly harming sales. Publisher's Weekly never says: "don't bother to buy this book." I may not have fully understood the role of some of those journals because they didn't give a lot of information about themselves, but I do think I understand the nature of "trade publication." LaMona (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that the definition of book review is "A book review is a form of literary criticism in which a book is analyzed based on content, style, and merit." It is the "critical analysis" part that is key here. If the review is a mere recounting of the story, then it's a synopsis, not a review. There has to be some judgment in a review, something analytic. Just because a journal or magazine or web site calls their writings "book reviews" doesn't mean that they are. LaMona (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We have long accepted trade reviews in AfD. Trade reviews do two things: they describe and evaluate the book. This is the definition of a book review. I have seen poor reviews in trade reviews, I have seen them say in effect don't bother with the book. Trades are used for all sorts of purpose such as libraries choosing collections who rely on them for guidance. The point is for AfD most books never get reviewed at all ("many books are published each year, only a small fraction of them are reviewed"), that is why we have the guideline for reviews and there is nothing in the guideline about trade reviews nor has there ever been any consensus to not use trade reviews, there has been discussion about it in the past (so I've been told). Generally if all a book has is trade reviews then it's a weaker case then a mix of trade and other types. This has more than trade reviews. -- Green  C  19:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * LaMona, are you familiar with Quill & Quire? If it's not an authoritative source of Canadian book reviews then there is no such source. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 22:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Given this ongoing chat is designed to provide "fact checking aspects", this is sloppy on many accounts. Earlier comment by Bearcat suggests his "reportage" barely appears on TV. He's on all of the time. Almost daily. SC Story of a Champion is NOT a children's book as stated by LaMona. It's 30,000+ words and sells at Chapters Canada for $17 not $3.(it took 30 seconds to research this and realize Lamona was wrong. But some Wikipedia user who does not put his/her name on this page calls it a "children's book"??? To my eye it appears to be 80 pages simply because it's in Coffee Table size/format, making it thinner. By the looks of it, had it been traditional format it would have been roughly 150 pages. Shoddy work by some on this page. I'm finding more errors on this on-going feedback section than on the actual Wikipedia page which appears to be accurate. I don't think making up facts helps in this case. Please be truthful and please be better with your research. I know nothing about the award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.115 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Where does it list this book as a best seller? It's not mentioned on the wiki article. Nor do any of the references list it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.2 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Look on the publisher's page at the second edition for $3.99CA . And see here where the grade level is listed . You might disagree with this assessment, but that's what I saw, and both are reliable sources. I do not think that "shoddy work" is an appropriate way to approach the discussion. And I truly resent anyone saying that I am not being truthful. Please act in good faith. LaMona (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Calling it a children's book is something that was fabricated. It's simply not true -- it was made up and clearly you don't enjoy being called out for it. But beyond that, there is no mention of any "best seller" status on this page. Nor does it appear in the references. $17.95 and it's still on sale here in Pittsburgh even four years after it was published. Just stick to the facts and you'll be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.2 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave you the actual links so you could look at them. The Worldcat record lists the elementary school grades the book is appropriate for, and, in my experience (and I have much experience with library data), grades are only listed for children's books. Plus anything appropriate for grades 3-6 cannot be assumed to be a book for adults, although (and this is the case with the Harry Potter books) adults may read and enjoy them. The price for the second edition is right there on the publisher's page that I linked. I agree that there is no mention of any bestseller status on the publisher's page. I pointed that out before. But maybe this publisher doesn't put those on its page -- I'm not trying to prove a negative, just passing alone what I actually see. LaMona (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, my point is there is no mention of "best seller" on his Wikipedia page. Why is best seller topic being discussed if it's not mentioned. From what I can tell, the book sold quite well and likely is on a top list somewhere. But on the Wikipedia page it's not an issue. There is no "best seller" line to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.2 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What does the price or reading level have to do with notability? T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Bearcat wrote: "PR bios claim a lot of things that aren't actually an accurate reflection of the facts (e.g. a "bestselling" book that was only a bestseller in one bookstore in the author's own hometown". Please verify. Where did Bearcat get this information about the bookstore. Let's be transparent. Please post on this page or retract comment. We've already established he was wrong about "reportage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.2 (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you know that he authored any 'bestselling' books, then it is incumbent on you to provide verification. It doesn't matter what Bearcat said. LaMona (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:AUTHOR doesn't say an author is notable just because their book has been reviewed. It says that a person is likely to be notable if the person "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Emphasis added.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a general example of the kinds of things that BLPs about all kinds of people regularly claim in order to beef up the appearance of being more notable than they really are, not an allegation against Hollingsworth. So there's nothing to retract, because my statement as written was entirely true — people really do that. And anyway, our rule on Wikipedia is that it's not the claim of getting over a notability rule that gets the person over the notability rule, but the quality of the reliable sourcing that can be provided to verify the accuracy of the claim. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would be willing to withdraw my "delete" recommendation if the claim that Hollingsworth won a Gemini award were removed from the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:N, article content does not determine notability. If you think he's notable then the article should be kept regardless of the current state of the article. If you don't agree with the content then that can be discussed, but you can't use your vote as a bargaining chip. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 05:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unsourced information should be removed. In contrast with Metropolitan90, I do not see how removing that sentence makes the subject any more notable. So I agree with your statement about the !vote, but we still have very little here that is verifiable and that would support notability. LaMona (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I shouldn't have made that offer. But I don't see how we can justify having an article that is five sentences long where one of the five sentences is known to be false. That seems like a very high inaccuracy rate. (The inaccurate sentence is sourced -- the problem is, a much more reliable source on the same subject contradicts the statement.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Short articles are acceptable. As for the "false" statement, not everyone agrees with you that it's false. But if the consensus develops that it is false, it will be removed. However he meets other notability criteria which people have explained. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 01:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The inaccuracy rate on this discussion is higher than any proven inaccuracy on the article. There was suggestion his reportage rarely appears on TV. That was a sloppy guess and wrong. He wrote a book on one of the most famous athletes in North America, and someone (above) suggested it was on a Canadian athlete and likely didn't sell in USA. Wrong. It's on shelves in Pitt at Barnes and Noble and sold for a while at NHL rink. Someone called it a children's book. Wrong. And I don't care what some web site categorized it. I went the store and checked myself. I have little confidence that the one sentence is actually wrong based on "some" of the feedback on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.127.189 (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that you think he really did win a Gemini Award, and the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television somehow forgot to list him as one of the winners? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that a reliable secondary source says he won a Gemini. Previously the database didn't even work, so maybe there's a problem with it. I don't know. But in any case, the database is a primary source and we shouldn't be doing original research. We should be looking for a secondary source that confirms or refutes that he won the award. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 07:05, 1 January 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.