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. I'm closing this as no consensus because of the nature of arguments in both directions. I know him and think he's notable, and I know him and I don't think he's notable are neither of them --the argument has been dominated by those with personal knowledge to an extent that no conclusion can be formed. A new afd with argument based only on the sources might reach a conclusion DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vern Hughes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for an IP. Rationale was "Contested prod. Severe BLP issues with many claims unsourced. Makes absolutely no claim to notability." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Australian political gadfly of many years, subject of plenty of reliable sources going back at least fifteen years. I find him wholly uninteresting, but when an editor asked I could turn up at least 100 hits for him in reliable sources in the space of five minutes. There are no BLP issues with the present content, it could easily be expanded with not much effort (and an editor offered to do so before the anon proceeded with this anyway), and he passes the GNG with no trouble. I'm still not writing the damn article because he's the rare modern Australian political figure who does not interest me one iota, but he's clearly notable to anyone who was paying attention to Victorian politics throughout the 2000s. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is he notable? What are these sources? If he has such a long career where is his mainstream coverage? Many controversial personal claims (such as his date of birth) are unsourced so there is definitely a BLP issue here. If he doesn't interest you, doesn't that say something? Perhaps he doesn't interest you because he's not notable? If you have so many sources, let's see them. Until then, his notability has not been established and that fulfills the criteria for this article to be deleted. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did the Google search, not finding much beyond circular references and opinion pieces written by the subject. No notable coverage by independent sources. Seaphoto^Talk 02:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- This is simply not true. There are 56 hits for Hughes in the Fairfax news database. That's stretching "no notable coverage" somewhat impressively. He's also been fairly well covered by Crikey over the years. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Admittedly I didn't check them all, but a lot of those 56 hits seem to merely be (a) letters to the editor which he's had published in Fairfax papers, (b) cursory "coverage" in which he's merely namechecked in passing in a list of by-election candidates, not actual coverage of him. The headline on more than half of those hits is either "letters" or "letters and e-mails", and even some of the ones with real headlines are actually still just the letters section. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've had a look and I could only find the sort of fluff one would expect from a religious dial-a-quote; lots of "Vern Hughes says such-and-such", but not much independent coverage of the man himself. If User:The Drover's Wife has had more luck finding sources it would be good if they could post them here, if they are better than what I've found I'm quite prepared to strike this !vote. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- As I said above, there are 56 hits for Hughes in the Fairfax news database, I can't search News Limited without a Factiva subscription but it's fairly likely there's a similar number there, and he's also been fairly well-covered in Crikey over the years. His various bids for political office are much more notable than the random-social-commentator tilt the article currently takes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And as I said above, a lot of those 56 Fairfax hits are just letters to the editor or namecheck sources which merely mention his name in passing as a candidate in a by-election, and few to none of them seem to constitute the substantive coverage that gets a person over WP:GNG. 56 hits does not necessarily equal 56 useful or valid sources — you need to evaluate for quality, not quantity. And incidentally, being a candidate for election to an office that the subject didn't win is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — if you cannot adequately source that a person is already notable enough for inclusion under a different notability guideline independently of their unsuccessful candidacies, then they have to win an election, not just run in it, to get notability under NPOL. So actually, being able to properly source the social-commentator tilt is his only viable shot at wikinotability. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had a quick look on Factiva, and there are 33 articles from The Oz in there, the vast majority of which are letters to the editor. There is also an op-ed piece that he wrote, and a couple of articles on other subjects where Hughes provides a quote. There's also a smattering of coverage in what appear to be regional Victorian papers that I looked at; in most cases these were about other topics, mostly the party that Hughes is involved in, and again had a quote or statement by Hughes but nothing about him. Nothing, in other words, that counts as significant coverage, in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hold everything - This should have been speedily deleted, and I placed the appropriate template. This AfD is initiated by a sockpuppet of a banned user (User:Justa Punk), and it therefore has no place on Wikipedia. He deleted the template, and I have chosen not to get into a edit war. The SPI will verify these statements (trying to deny it with so many similarities, including the similarity to IP 124.180.170.151, which was blocked as one of his sockpuppets earlier this year, is just offensive). Let's block this IP, close this up, and focus on improving the encyclopedia with the help of people who have not excluded themselves from the community. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy application has been reported as vandalism. Matter is being handled by appropriate channels. I thought this user may have been a part of the COI issues with Vern Hughes, but I'm not so sure now. This looks more like paranoid behaviour that threatens the Wikipedia community but I don't know for sure. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let it run, please I was the editor that completed the AfD on a request. Regardless of whether the IP is evading a block - which should be dealt with elsewhere - the AfD is not problematic (there are clearly concerns about the subject's notability) and so I am happy to take responsibility for it. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD is problematic, as it is the channel through which he slides back into Wikipedia on a regular basis. As someone whose repeated actions over many years got him a community ban--not a block--he does not deserve a voice on Wikipedia, and that includes telling other editors which articles he wants discussed for deletion. In his ban discussion, he was clear that he feels entitled to engage in sockpuppetry to "right wrongs", and allowing him to have any say in notability discussions or any other area of the site justifies that opinion in his mind. The only way this troll will finally disappear (four years since his ban, and he's still at it) is for the community to take a stand and enforce the ban by reverting and deleting every one of his edits on sight, and that includes the "harmless" and "not problematic" ones.

With that said, I have absolutely no interest or knowledge on this topic or this AfD aside from the obvious sockpuppet issue. I believe it should be speedily deleted, but I can understand if you feel that it has gone too far. I would ask, however, that future requests to complete similar AfDs are treated with caution. Justa Punk shows a regular slippery slope cycle: an AfD request, a flurry of vindictive edits and edit wars, a block, and threats of more sockpuppets to come. He needs to be shut down from the outset. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, I will be more forceful about pursuing speedy deletion of future sockpuppet AfDs from the outset. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to revisit this if somebody can actually spruce up the sourcing to actually demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG at all, but this article as written is not sourced enough to stay and the 56 Fairfax database hits that The Drover's Wife noted above are mostly just letters to the editor rather than substantive coverage. The article as written does not make a claim that passes WP:NPOL, so it isn't entitled to stick around in a poorly-referenced state just because somebody asserts notability that isn't properly sourced — you need to show that enough reliable source coverage to get him over GNG actually exists, and so far that hasn't been done. And if there's a problem with an editor's behaviour, then that needs to be dealt with by dealing with the editor — his mere involvement in the dispute does not trump the question of whether this article, as written, meets our inclusion and quality standards or not. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can create a properly sourced version. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I note the following: "an important political figure in the disability sector", a heading quote in a well-regarded textbook, a mention in the Latham Diaries, a good few appearances in Google Scholar, all this in addition to the coverage demonstrated above concerning People Power (almost all of the non-letters to the editor in the Fairfax archive) in addition to this and all the rest (easily found via a quick Google search). Hughes is probably the best-known disability advocate in Victoria. I would also say the various opinion pieces he's authored, for numerous publications over the last fifteen years, are indicative of his significance. (I will augment the article with a few of these sources too, of course.) (Edit: I also want to note that there are no BLP issues in the current version, let alone "severe" ones as the IP claims.) Frickeg (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first three links show one mention, and one mention only. So we can strike them out as proof of notability. If he's such a great disability advocate his name should be all over the disability peak bodies websites in Victoria. Is it? I'm not familiar with the strength of Google Scholar but I doubt it provides to weight required to get this over the line.

On the BLP issues - the opening paragraph is full of unsourced claims that are against WP:BLP, in particular the date of birth. That's serious in anyone's language. I'll add in closing that this user is also subject to the COI issues in my opinion along with The Drover's Wife. Neutrality is clearly absent with both of them. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being namechecked once, and only once, in a couple of books about other things is not the same thing as being the subject of enough coverage to get over GNG. Notability is a question of substantive coverage of him, not simply a raw count of how many sources might happen to include his name while failing to be about him in any substantive way. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On procedural grounds, as this AfD was initiated by a sockpuppet of a banned user, and many of the rebuttals come from the aforementioned sockpuppet (let's not be so insulting as to claim that this outburst, that came only a day or two before the next JustaPunk outburst, is just a coincidence). Also per Frickeg, who was demonstrated multiple references in reliable sources, including a very direct statement that Vern Hughes is an important political figure. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off, for what it's worth, the IP is not Justa Punk. Punk never had an interest in politics and as indicated in the SPI I know the guy IRL by his real name (which naturally I won't reveal). Secondly, I'm voting delete from a position of OR. I know Vern and and I know his reputation and I can tell you all that he is not a disability advocate. In fact he has alienated every disability peak body in Victoria. So claims to notability in that area are false. Personal friends (as indicated by the links provided by Frickeg) need to go a lot further than they did to pass the political notability test at least. The key is substantive third party coverage, which Vern does not have, and frankly will never have unless he stops trying to tear the whole system down and start from scratch - which is impossible. Finally, there is a COI issue here although the IP's claim comes out of left field even though I can see where the idea comes from. There's no proof of that though - however there is evidence that Vern himself has edited this article, and that's not allowed unless it's uncontroversial. It's a grey area there than needs to be clarified, so I suggest a statement be made by both Frickeg and The Drover's Wife on that point. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very, very surprised if the IP is not at least a former user, given their familiarity with deletion procedure. In any case the COI allegations are ridiculous and not really worthy of a response, other than to say that a look at either mine or TDW's contributions will indicate that the idea is absurd. For the record, I don't know Hughes, have never been in a position to vote for him, and wouldn't have done so anyway. (Genuine question: are Gibilisco and Horrigan personal friends of Hughes? I assume that's what you're referring to with the comment above.) Hughes almost certainly did edit the article, but that by itself is not a reason to delete (as far as I can tell almost none of his contributions remain anyway, apart from the birth date which should probably go without a source). Frickeg (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Frickeg said, this is a case of the IP just slandering any user who disagrees with him. I don't think I've ever edited the article, and I've said here that I find him a pretty boring figure albeit one who I do believe is notable, so I'm not sure why on earth one would think I had a COI apart from voting the opposite way to what the IP wanted. I don't understand your suggestion about "personal friends" requiring a higher notability bar - "personal friends" of who? I will say that this comment, ironically enough, does smell of COI - it seems as if it's being based on your own personal dealings with Hughes rather than on the coverage of him that actually exists. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that one doesn't have to actually edit the article to have a COI issue. It also includes other behaviours - like trying to protect the article from deletion without seeming to really think about it and pay attention to what's being said (not by the IP, I mean the other users). You're probably right about the IP being a former user of some description, but all that matters there is that it's not Justa Punk (end of that one). The "personal friend" I was talking about was Latham. The birth date requires a source under WP:BLP. As far as me having a COI issue, I only made the points I did (and admitted they were OR) to show why it won't be possible to find substantive independent coverage. It didn't go directly to the point of why the article should be deleted. There's an extra step there, if you see what I mean. Drover, let's the careful on Wikipedia with accusations of slander. Legal threats are out of line big time - I'm not saying you actually issued a threat. I'm just heading off something at the pass before it gets to that point. Okay? Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hon, you're someone who knows the guy and has strong feelings about him. I'm someone who reads about him in the paper from time to time, usually when he's running for political office. These COI claims are completely inappropriate. I resent the suggestion that I "haven't thought about it" or didn't "pay attention" just because, as someone who doesn't have a stake in the matter and doesn't know the man personally, I disagree with your conclusion and don't find any of the deletion arguments compelling. And if I were making legal threats, a) you'd know it, and b) I'd actually use the right language. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, you consider letters to the editor written by the subject and single mentions in books substantive independent coverage? Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I consider that a mischaracterisation of the sources from someone with a personal stake in the matter. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat (who made the point first and I was simply clarifying it) has a personal stake in it? Curse of Fenric (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a completely accurate assessment of the sources that were offered — somewhere between half and two-thirds of the hits in that Fairfax database link were headlined "Letters and e-mails". And for the record, I live in Canada and thus have no "personal stake" in anything pertaining to any Australian politician. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, no. Conflict of interest is not a catch-all designation for what you perceive to be badly thought-out votes, it has a specific meaning: that someone with a personal stake in the outcome has a role in the process. There isn't a shred of evidence that either TDW or I has anything resembling a conflict of interest, and I'd like to thank the other participants for ignoring the "allegations" as the feeble attempts they were. Also, it's good to know the personal friends that invalidated the "links provided by Frickeg" were, in fact, just one of them. Not at all misleading. Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are denying your refusal to admit that you have interpreted the notability requirement as depicted by Bearcat isn't at the very least suspicious on the issue of "personal stake in it"? How about you explain in detail where your links show substantive independent coverage, and I can show you where you're going wrong in similar detail. And remember - we are attempting to achieve a consensus here, not arguing about who's right and who's wrong, and the best way to do that is to discuss, evaluate and learn. If you've seen something that I've missed now's the time to bring it forth. Curse of Fenric (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, it's a long time since I've been patronised quite that much. It's almost refreshing. And yes, I do believe that my links, in addition to a portion of the Fairfax archive links, show substantive independent coverage. The election runs and People Power stuff is the meat of it; the academic references I included are mostly corroboration, although also clearly suggestive of further coverage in sources that may not be available at our fingertips. Quite simply, we disagree on the fundamental point of whether what has been provided constitutes substantive coverage. That's fine. Consensus does not mean badgering everyone to one point or another. And yes, I am absolutely denying that I have any "personal stake" in this, and furthermore that there is any reason to suppose I do, and this is absolutely the last time I will address that ridiculous issue. Frickeg (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Admittedly I didn't check them all, but a lot of those 56 hits seem to merely be (a) letters to the editor which he's had published in Fairfax papers, (b) cursory "coverage" in which he's merely namechecked in passing in a list of by-election candidates, not actual coverage of him. The headline on more than half of those hits is either "letters" or "letters and e-mails", and even some of the ones with real headlines are actually still just the letters section."

That's what Bearcat said above to Drover and then repeated it to you. It's not substantive independent coverage - and that's all I need to say. We have no consensus possible here, because you won't evaluate or learn. If this AfD is ended as "no consensus" I will be giving serious consideration to re-nominating it, and putting a better case than the IP through Black Kite did. Curse of Fenric (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is getting irritating. I actually did check all 56 Fairfax hits. Yes, only one (this one) can really be called significant coverage, and yes, we can discount the 28 letters and 10 that are just lists of candidates (usually for either the Williamstown by-election or the Melbourne City Council election). The others are 14 that I called "spokesman" type coverage ("People Power president Vern Hughes said ..."), and 3 opinion pieces authored by Hughes. I can understand why people would not consider this sufficient, but together the other links, the Google Scholar hits, the book links, and the fact that there is an inherent notability argument under WP:POLOUTCOMES (as a leader of a major-sub-national registered political party), none of which on their own would qualify him, in my view put him over the top. Lastly, I would say that a little assumption of good faith would go a long way to restoring the civil tone that (IP excepting) was prevailing here a few days ago. Frickeg (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Registered hmm? Curse of Fenric (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a former major-sub-national registered political party. Keep up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vern Hughes seems to be important in two interlinked roles at the present time: the Director of Centre for Civil Society[1], a very small advocate organisation for community based self-reliance and mutualism, and he appears to play a pivotal role in a new political party being established in Victorian and New South Wales Politics in 2014 and 2015 - Voice of the West. He is listed as the contact for candidate CVs for Voice of the West for the Victorian State Election in 2014. [2] I think his academic and authorship background, participation and advocation for mutual community based organisation and politics, as well as his involvement in politics over several years makes him inherently notable, even if detailed third party sources are scarce.Takver (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to some of his social policy publications by conservative think tanks, and also the influence and support for Mark Latham's Third Way advocacy. Opinion pieces published in major newspapers also indicate a certain standing in the community as a leader, commentator or expert, and should not be disregarded when assessing a person's notability for Wikipedia.Takver (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't seem to me that there is significant independent coverage of him. I also don't think he's a notable politician since he hasn't been elected to any position that would automatically show notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.