Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Christian

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FrRob (talk | contribs) at 21:43, 9 December 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mike Christian

Mike Christian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Fair enough. 203.23.210.123 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

This template must be substituted.

  • 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 [1] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "prank" may be notable, the perpetrator certainly is not (WP:ONEEVENT). WWGB (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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#2Day FM hoax call resulting in recipient' suspected suicide, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Then WP:BLP1E applies, he is only notable because of this stunt. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Christian&oldid=527240756"