Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Hopfensperger

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 delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hopfensperger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable. The subject's achievements do not confer notability in any kind of automatic way, and coverage is severely lacking. He is mentioned in one book, but that's hardly in-depth, and it doesn't strike me as a very notable publication. Nothing relevant in Google News either. The COI has been noted but has no bearing on notability, of course. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak DeleteKeep - Appears to fail WP:GNG with no Google News search results and no significant coverage in a Google News Archive search (there's two pages of hits but only this was any where near significant and it doesn't seem reliable). Fails WP:POLITICIAN with never having held an "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". Fails WP:ARTIST as the band itself doesn't appear to be notable let alone has it produced anything notable enough to infer notability of each member. Here's where it gets iffy. Doesn't seem to fulfill WP:ATHLETE. Swimming has no specific section in the guideline. The subject has won several races and swam the English channel but I don't believe our guidelines take that into account (purposefully or not). I think a swimming expert would need to determine if those races are large enough that winning one would infer notability (like winning an Olympic race). I'll invite some swimming experts over as that's the only way I can notability being established but for now, I don't see how the subject can be considered notable. OlYeller^Talktome 17:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've invited experts from WikiProject Swimming to assist. OlYeller^Talktome 17:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm changing my !vote to Weak Keep. The subject of the article has been covered extensively by local news sources, his charity work has received coverage from several local sources, he has competed and won in several swimming events that don't seem to be particularly significant (but there's also no inclusion guideline for swimmers, specifically), won several local elections, participated in some BBC and Discovery Channelshows as what amounts to a kind of ultimate swimming specimen. I feel that combining all of this sub-notability-proving information with one case of significant coverage from the BBC (a major reliable source), you have someone who is notable. As for the COI, as I've mentioned before, I'm heavily involved at WP:COIN and will make sure that the situation is dealt with appropriately if the article is kept. OlYeller^Talktome 14:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Channel swimming is notable as a swimming event. --LauraHale (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi it's Paul Hopfensperger here. I am new to this, so do not know who to speak to about the above comments, so please bear with me. I have not completed the article yet. Do I still keep adding to it while you decide whether to delete it or not? My e-mail is (Redacted) if someone wants to contact me. Thanks. Very humbly and apologetic if I am doing something wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulHopfensperger (talk • contribs) 11:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Paul. While creating an article for yourself is strongly discouraged (see WP:AB), it's not like you've robbed some senior citizens or anything like that. You can certainly continue to edit the article for now. The issue that this deletion discussion is addressing is whether or not you fall into one of the inclusion guidelines found at WP:N which is all about Wikipedia's definition of "notability". The easiest way to prove notability is to show/use multiple news articles that constitute significant coverage (not just a mention or short paragraph) from a reliable sources (not a blog or small website) that's independent from the subject they're writing about (not a PR piece, etc.). That's generally referred to as the General Notability Guideline or WP:GNG (I referenced it in my first paragraph). When I wrote my first response, I couldn't find many news articles but it looks like you've added several new references since then. In the next day or two, I plan on going back through and reassessing the article but even then, I'm not "the decider" when it comes to deletion. You can check out more about this process here if you're interested. For now, I suggest checking out WP:N and/or adding more news articles about yourself to the article so that we can try to establish notability. After that, we can start addressing the improvement templates on the top of the page. Have a great day! OlYeller^Talktome 11:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi OlYeller! Thank you for this information. I am building up the "Notability" areas, but it takes time! Hopefully it won't be deleted before I get to complete the information for analysis by Wikipedia experts like yourself. Will you bear with me while I complete it before judging it please? (I am away for 3 days from tomorrow so not sure how much more I can update before then). Kind regards. Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulHopfensperger (talk • contribs) 20:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Paul. Per policy, AfDs last for seven days. Also, even if it's deleted, we can always bring it back if there's a reason to believe that notability has changed. We can even WP:userfy it for you so you can work on it in your user space. I haven't gotten a chance to look at all the new references but I will in the next day or two. OlYeller^Talktome 14:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-non notable and self promotion DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does self-promotion have anything to do with notability? This is a conversation about the notability of the subject of the article, not the article itself. OlYeller^Talktome 14:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The main source of possible notability is the FINA Open Water Grand Prix , and I have no idea if this is a major international event. If so, he qualifies. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked WikiProject Swimming to help determine the importance but so far, no one has showed up. OlYeller^Talktome 01:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've asked WikiProject Sports for assistance. I think the AfD may close today, though. OlYeller^Talktome 18:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:N is not met. However, if kept, Mr. Paul Hopfensperger should at least put a WP:COI notice on his user page to inform the reader of this. The entire article is written by him. --Ryan.germany (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree (with the COI part). I'm heavily involved at WP:COIN and am monitoring the situation. I thought I'd address that later if the result is Keep. I didn't want to seem too bite-y to a new editor. OlYeller^Talktome 14:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Whilst the BBC is indeed a major reliable source, I don't think a case of significant coverage by BBC Suffolk and a case of significant coverage by a local news source are worlds apart in terms of notability. I can't see that a case of coverage by a local branch of the BBC (presumably a local radio station) significantly boosts notability. I don't think he passes the notability guideline. Mato (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - His achievements seem admirable rather than notable. Swimming the English Channel is a feat but does everyone that has completed it have a wikipedia page? Perhaps a happy compromise could be reached by including Mr Hopfensperger on a page about English Channel swimmers?SkinheadEscapes (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – passes GNG. Swimming the English Channel may not give notability as an athlete, but Gnews search[1] demonstrates he is more than just “one-event”. Kugao (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A Gnews search returns nothing[2]; a Gnews search of archives returns only a handful of disparate local news items[3]. Not notable. Twizzlemas (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Surely what matters is whether he has done something significant for the first time or come first in something significant. Have I missed something here? If everyone who appeared on local radio had a page we'd have our work cut out. Selfpublicitybuster —Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note - This appears to be an SPA and is probably a sock.
  • English Channel Stats - With respect, this wasn't just "on local radio" it was an entire Discover Channel film crew on the support boat including a separate boat with a second film crew on, and a BBC Radio reporter broadcasting live throughout the day for over 14 hours from The English Channel. You should know that swimming The English Channel is the 'Everest' of Open Water Swimming. Only about 1,200 people since Captain Matthew Webb's first ever crossing in 1875 have swum The English Channel, and I was only the 84th person in history to swim it twice. More people have climbed Mount Everest than have swum The English Channel. Far more. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulHopfensperger (talk • contribs) 06:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, people that climb Everest are not routinely given Wikipedia entries either. These things are personal feats but so many people are achieving them nowadays that their significance to the wider community is simply not what it would once have been. I do not wish to belittle your personal achievement but "84th" is not "1st". Sorry, still non-notable.Twizzlemas (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless this is radically rewritten very soon. Firstly there is no balance. I see from history he has already removed some references to controversy, and a quick search throws up some interesting cuttings. IMO there is too much repetition of the quasi-notable events and too much about the non-notable. He needs to decide what is important and slim down to it, then add less adulatory references for balance. Why no mention of the failed double channel swim which I discovered via Google? Maybe ironically this is notable. Was he less than 84th to do that even though it failed? I have every admiration for this man but at present this piece won't do. --Errater (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there has been no remedial action and surely the extended delete window has expired. Also note that there are 3 keeps, one from an avowed avoider of deleting and another from a keen sportswoman. There are 7 deletes, excluding the suspect one. I know its not a numbers game, but still, someone with clout please decide. I shall start editing if it stays much longer.--Errater (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not referring to me as the "avowed avoider" as that's patently false. OlYeller^Talktome 16:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be going on at the articles Talk page rather than here which should be strictly for voting keep or delete. I also think that PaulHopfensperger should decide exactly why he is notable rather than this 'throw enough mud at the wall' approach. Twizzlemas (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I really must concur with the majority of opinion here. The supplied references do not establish notability, and being the 84th person to do anything is hardly worthy of mention. Perhaps Paul would be better employed working on the articles for the other 83... Someone mentioned Gnews results, and gave a link to two pages of news hits - well I checked out all of those, and none of them are about swimming. They are all extremely minor mentions of his function as a councillor, without any information about Paul himself, and absolutely do not establish any kind of notability. Oh, and there is the one where he gets a police caution for manipulating the voting system, which I notice Paul didn't add to the article about himself. This really appears to be a poor attempt at inflating his reputation by selecting the nice yet non-notable things about himself, regardless of how important the world has seen them. Delete already. Weakopedia (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - My response to Mr Hopfensperger will appear, properly, on my talk page, since his is restricted. Apologies for misrepresenting OlYeller --Errater (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were looking at the talkpage of the article about Paul, if you wish to reach him directly try here. Weakopedia (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2011 (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.