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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Bill Hillmann

Bill Hillmann (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I had been open and honest with my concerns about this Draft to the user showing how the sources, even though about 4 news reviews, were still not enough because even the foreign sources such as Spanish in fact only consisted of interviewed quotes and other self-given information by the man himself, another thing was the fact there are no significant library holdings and he has merely published 3 books in the past few years, nothing is yet actually amounting to substance. Therefore I still confirm my my PROD here and examining this article finds nothing for genuine independent notability and substance aside from having attention for a few events, particularly the bull riding. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Totally borderline. Outside the review of his book by Chicago Tribune at [1] I don't see anything else that would help establish him for WP:NAUTHOR. He got coverage for being gored, some in quality journals ( [2]), but this is WP:ONEEVENT notability. He was subject to a reasonably good interview at CT too, [3]. This seems very borderline to me. Sources are reliable, but neither suffices for notability on their own. Together... tough call. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 21:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 21:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 21:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Bill Hillmann is notable. The Chicago Tribune named him a Remarkable Person in 2011. Hillmann's notability falls into three different categories.

1. His Books and writing: I just added yet another review of The Old Neighborhood done by Barbra Hoffert of Library Journal. Hoffert is one of the most important librarians in the country. The Old Neighborhood is collected by over a thousand libraries, there is a link provided to The Chicago Public Library the third biggest chain of libraries in the country. The Old Neighborhood was named best new book of 2014 by the Chicago Sun-Times a major news outlet. Coverage of Hillmann's second book Mozos appeared on several extensive National TV segments in Spain and the United States. Hillmann appeared on the cover of the Diario De Navarra a regional newspaper in Pamplona, Spain for an interview about his book. There is a pure review by a national outlet in Spain El Imparcial which is cited in the article. Hillmann was published in Spain by the biggest most prestigious publisher in all of Spain, Planeta. Hillmann's audio essay "Running With The Bulls" won a Great Lakes Regional Edward Murrow Award for Radio Excellence in 2010, it was a finalist for the National Edward Murrow Award. Hillmann received the Encierro Divulgation Award from the organization Eh Toro for his writing on the bull run in Cuellar Spain in 2012.

2. Expert Bull Runner Hillmann has run with the bulls more than 300 times over more than a decade. Hillmann has been called an "Expert Bull Runner" by CNN International during a segment they did about Hillmann and his book Mozos. The LA Times called him "The Best Young American Runner". Hillmann appeared on the back cover of Diario De Navarra regional newspaper in Pamplona for a story about his experiences running 200 bull runs in one summer. Hillmann was gored in 2014 and stories appeared in, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Australian, The Hindu, El Mundo Spain, CNN International, NBC Today, The Economic Times of India, and numerous other outlets. Hillmann has been a guest commentator for NBC Today, CBS This Morning, The Esquire Network, on the running of the bulls. Photos of Hillmann running with the bulls have been published around the world including in Life Magazine.

3. Storyteller and Windy City Story Slam creator and host. Hillmann created The Windy City Story Slam a show that was the first of it's kind in Chicago. The show recieved attention nationally in Salon and The Chicago Tribune, and internationally in The Guardian UK. The show attracted massive crowds in Chicago, Philadelphia, London and the Edinburgh Festival. Hillmann also created the first National Story Slam which took place on the main stage of the Chicago Tribune Printer's Row Book Fair and included storytellers representing storytelling series from 10 different cities across the USA. Hillmann won the Boulder Story Slam competition in Boulder Colorado. He has told Stories broadcast on National Public Radio three times for The Story, and Snapjudgment. Hillmann's told stories across the United States and in England, Mexico, Spain, and Scotland.

The notability of Hillmann is obvious. The logic that Hillmann hasn't published enough books is ludicrous many authors only publish one book and become very notable. There are 22 cites for this article from some of the biggest news outlets in the world. I'm worried this article is being targeted in an attempt to censor it due to political reasons, or potentially personal reasons. I have never found a more extensively cited article for an author. DanHamilton1998 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply

For all clarity and honesty, I mentioned this at the help noticeboard when you came, and I said that simply because one author becomes notable with a few books is not a basis itself, because usually that means there are either significant library collections or a significant number of reviews, and that's not the case here. All of us can assure you there are no political motivations against this AfD and it's simply there are not enough reviews overall, regardless of publication names. I acknowledged the Chicago Public Library having it, but it's still not enough at this time. If his notability had been better convincing, there would've at least been better reviews available. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply

The problem with your arguement is what you consider significant. The Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, The Week Magazine, El Imparcial, have all reviewed the works. I'm sorry you feel those outlets are not significant. You are incorrect. They are all extremely significant. Not to mention, your idea's on an author being interviewed and quoted about their works by major outlets as being insignificant is also false. Where do you get these nonsensical ideas? An author interview means that a major outlet has deemed the book and author significant and notable. Your logic there is extremely weak and incorrect. I don't know where you draw your experience in the publishing world but it clearly is not a background in real publishing. What is your background? What makes you an expert on this subject? Your lines of logic are vague and weak and rely on your personal opinion which clearly has no merit. You continue to perpetrate this lie that the works in question are not collected in libraries. They are collected by over a thousand libraries, that is a fact. You are incorrect about there not being enough here to merit an article. There is more cited evidence for this article than any author article, I've been able to find. Swister Twister please step aside this is getting strange and feels personal. DanHamilton1998 ( talk) 22:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC) reply

I simply am going to note that El Imparcial was in fact an interview and this is obvious in that everything is stated by the man himself, I also never said the publications themselves were "not significant", I said the contents were not and that's caused by said interviews in the man's own words. An author interview means the man is talking himself, and there was no journalism, and if this is emphasized by the fact there are no actual reviews aside from the 4 listed, it shows there's nothing else. Also, where are the supposed thousand libraries? WorldCat explicitly listed none and you actually begin by saying there was in fact one library, not "over a thousand". SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Ok,SwisterTwister. now you are outright lying, or not checking the links. You acknowledged El Imparcial was a review in our chatroom discussion now you are just contradicting yourself.

^[1]

Anyone can follow this link and copy and paste this review into google translate and see that it is a review of the memoir Mozos.

Ok now, I took ten seconds to go to the website, she just used to argue that Bill Hillmann's books are not in libraries. I dropped the name Bill Hillmann in the search at WorldCat and the books popped up. So either she forgot the second n in Hillmann or she is just lying or potentially mentally ill and fixated on trying to block this article.

^[2]

I'm sorry but Swister Twister has absolutely no touch with reality on how the publishing world works. You can not go to a news publication and tell them what to write, or make them publish words you've written about yourself. These are multi-million dollar award winning news outlets who give attention to whom ever they see worthy. These outlets contradict everything SwisterTwista has written. Is this what Wikipedia is? A place where a person who has no touch with reality, no expertise, can delete quality articles? What SwistaTwista is arguing is that a group of the biggest news outlets in the world conspired to allow Bill Hillmann to write things about himself and then they published them. Do you really think that is how journalism works? Please tell me a logical person will read this. Her argument is a conspiracy theory that more than 22 world renowned news outlets have allowed Bill Hillmann to write about himself then publish it in their outlets. Then her argument is that a website called "worldcat" says that Hillmann's books are not collected when The Chicago Public Library system consisting of more than 50 libraries and libraries across the country say otherwise. So who do you believe swistatwista and worldcat? Or the dozens of world renowned institutions Chicago Tribune, The Guardian (UK), Chicago Public Library, New York Times, Toronto Star, People Magazine, The Times of India, NBC Today, The Australian and dozens others that have given a tremendous amount of attention to Hillmann and his works? Those outlets say he is notable, twistasista says he is not. Who do you believe? DanHamilton1998 ( talk) 19:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I'm going to argue for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG based on following sources ( [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) in addition to above submitted ones. We've notability guidelines because we need independent reliable sources to be able to write an encyclopedia article and imo sources available at this time are able serve the purpose. Anup [Talk] 16:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC) reply

As I am a native speaker, I can confirm the SanFermin is an interview and this is also obvious in that it's listed as Q&A, ElMundo.Es is then simply a summary of what he published and information about it. The MySuburbanLife.com is clearly an indie blog piece therefore cannot be considered substance. All in all, as Piotrus said, this is still a borderline case, therefore a questionable keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 14 November (UTC)

• Keep All these major outlets summarizing and asking questions about Hillmann's books is a vote by these publications toward legitimizing Hillmann's and his book's notability. They are evidence that legitimate outlets believe Hillmann and his books are notable. There is a limited space in these outlets and they can't talk with or write about everyone's books. They make choices about what books and people, merit words in their publications. They are voting against your opinion about Hillmann and his books. They are saying Hillmann and his books are notable. The people who run these publications are world renowned experts in their field. Their opinions are worthy of your consideration. Their opinions on this matter might have more value than your opinion. I'm not sure, maybe you are a world renowned figure in the publishing world. But the arguments you've made here are a clear indicator that you are not an expert in this field. There are plenty of reviews of Hillmann's books, in fact there are more reviews cited in this article than any other author article, the reviews are from top outlets. Suburban Life is not an indie blog. Suburban Life is a weekly print newspaper that circulates to thousands of people. Feel free to google it. Or in fact you can just search for it here in Wikipedia. It is an award winning newspaper. Have a nice day. DanHamilton1998 ( talk) 21:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The reviews are sufficient to meet NAUTHOR. Sometimes the decision is simple. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment * If this AfD is archived please be sure to update its corrosponding ANI thread WP:ANI#DanHamiltion, if it still existent to prevent confusion. Thanks! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 01:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Plenty of sources. South Nashua ( talk) 03:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Is this normal procedure to have an article placed in limbo for 14 days, when there is a tremendous amount of evidence from world renowned sources to merit notability? From what I've read if an article is relisted, it is supposed to be for less than seven days. We will hit the seventh day of being relisted tomorrow. Please can someone explain this behavior? We have six keeps here. DanHamilton1998 ( talk) 19:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: DanHamilton1998 ( talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. reply

This inst the election we do not count the Keeps and deletes we count what arguments are best supported by guidelines/polices and act respectfully! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Zppix your comment above is unprofessional and belittling. I feel disrespected by it. I also feel that you are acting out as a form of revenge. The only evidence contradicting this article is vaguely stated opinion and false statements which have been proven false by factual evidence. All of the evidence supporting this article is from world renowned sources like The Chicago Tribune, NPR, New York Times, ABC Newspaper (Spain), Toronto Star, Publisher's Weekly, NBC Today. Is there any way to police the behavior of the detractors of this article? Are there any places I can list this where a true authority can look at it objectively? I feel very disappointed by the conduct of these few editors who are using vague and weak arguments against this article which has a tremendous amount of evidence cited. Please tell me Wikipedia is run by objective editors and not people who behave like SwisterTwister and Zppix, that would just be sad, unfair, and pathetic. DanHamilton1998 ( talk) 01:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: DanHamilton1998 ( talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. reply

• Keep and snow close - sources indicate the subject clearly meets WP:GNG, and we don't seem to have a more specific notability guideline for bullfighters. Whether his 300-or-so bullfights constitute a single event or not, his career has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and that's good enough. Yes, some of the sources are less reliable than others, but that's not enough to question their validity here. Furthermore this should be closed per WP:SNOW: Piotrus called it "borderline" (which I don't interpret as an argument to delete) and nominator SwisterTwister said "confident keep" above although I'm not entirely sure how to interpret that comment, but that leaves nobody calling for deletion here. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 02:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

I have fixed the "confident" to questionable, I was not aware I actually typed something else.... SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps not a snow case then, but this probably has been open long enough to demonstrate consensus. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 02:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Loads of significant coverage in very notable reliable mainstream venues all around the U.S. and beyond. Added to his articles, broadcasts, and books, this is a no-brainer. SwisterTwister, please do WP:BEFORE before AfDing an article. Softlavender ( talk) 03:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

The concerns I had began with this AfD, were about the advertising motivations, I had completed WP:BEFORE so WP:AGF applies here; also, because there was enough to suspect the article was made for advertising, that for sure necessitated an AfD. Also, FWIW, my concerns of at least half of the sources simply being republished interviews and then they being falsely listed as "reviews" were concerning, hence my nomination. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

I do not at all believe you did WP:BEFORE; you are still even now only referring to the citations in the wiki article itself, not on WP:BEFORE research (which can be done now by clicking the links at the top of this page: 20,000 web results including 6,200 WP reference results; 200 news results; two independent Book results; 20 Highbeam results; etc.). There are dozens of cases of significant and varied independent coverage in extremely notable national venues, and there is significant international coverage as well. Your mysterious "concerns about advertising" have no place at AfD; you should know that by now. When you don't do WP:BEFORE, you just waste everyone's time. If you don't know how to do WP:BEFORE, do this: paste the Template:Find sources on the article's talk page and click the links that way. Softlavender ( talk) 03:54, 21 November 2016 (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.