Talk:Myke Hurley

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the subject of the article is a media personality who has founded multiple podcasting networks. He currently running the relay.fm network and hosts 9 separate podcasts. --Justinwortham (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability and primary sources

Being a "media personality" and running a network that "host 9 separate podcasts" are not things that make an individual notable for a Wikipedia article. What is needed are reliable sources, independent of the subject, significantly discussing Hurley and his activities. Sources need to be provided that Hurley clearly establish that he satisfies WP:BIO. Any sources closely connected to Hurley such as a social media account or a company page, or which only provide a trivial mention may be acceptable to verify certain facts in the article, but they do nothing to establish his Wikipedia notability. As long as the article remains poorly sourced, content not supported by an appropriate relaible source may be removed at any time per WP:BLPSOURCES.

I've tagged the article with some maintenance templates to alert other editors of these problems. These templates will add the article to certain categories and those help make other more aware of it. I will look for better sources myself, but if nobody is able to properly address these concerns and Hurley's Wikipedia notability is not better established, then the article's chance of surving WP:AfD is not very good if it is evenutally nominated for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@ArniDagur: Just for reference, "a plethora of less notable people with articles, but that's not really relevant when it comes to Wikiepdia notability for the reasons explained in other stuff exists. If you are aware of other articles which have problems you can add maintenance templates to them if you wish, or you may nominate them for deletion. Also, you should not remove the article talk page posts of others simply because you feel they are no longer relevant. Article talk pages serve as a historical record of all discussions about an article, and the posts of others should only be removed/edited in certain cases as explained in WP:TPO. If you want to discuss the notability of Hurley, then this is the place to do so; if you want to engage in edit warring over article talk page posts or a notability template, then the discussion will be at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Try reading through WP:BIO; any objective person reading through the notability guidelines can see that this article clearly meets them. The article already cites many independent sources talking about him in more that a trivial manner. You are in the minority of people here questioning the article's notability; your opinion holds no more weight than the rest of us. -- ArniDagur (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources currently cited, and I don't agree with your assessment. Anything directly connected to Hurley himself, such as an official website or an interview, is considered a primary source. Primary sources may be used to cite certain factual content, but they do not help in establishing notability. Moreover, any listing such as "100 coolest ..." or similar is typically not considered significant coverage. Simply being mentioned as #67 on a list of someone's Top 100 or being shown in a photo at a party doesn't help with notability. Perhaps you can point out which source(s) you feel are independent and provide significant coverage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Try reading through WP:SIGCOV please.

• https://techcrunch.com/2015/08/18/relay-fm-and-the-podcast-renaissance-that-never-was/
• http://podcasts.apple.com/eaas/uk/special_event/hurley_podcast/ep1.mp3
• https://vimeo.com/169731153
• http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/07/hot-pod-will-any-of-the-companies-trying-to-build-the-youtube-of-podcasting-succeed/
• He seems to be notable enough to warrant his own Google search result infobox: http://i.imgur.com/0wZAgC2.png
• He gets similarly many google searches as the 22nd and 24th president of the USA: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Myke%20Hurley,Chester%20A.%20Arthur, and a lot more if the USA is excluded.

-- ArniDagur (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've read through SIGCOV many times and I don't see any of that in the sources cited in the article. Two of the links you listed above (TechCrunch and Niemanlab) seem promising, but they are not currently cited in the article, are they? The Nieman lab one does, however, seem more about the network than Hurley himself and also seems to be a quasi interview. As for the other links you've provided, they don't seem to be significant coverage. I also don't get how having a Google search box of getting more Google hits than someone else, especially former US presidents who served well before the Internet age, is necessarily an indication of Wikipedia notability. However, feedback can be requested at WP:RSN about that if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note: This long article contains a lot of biographical and career info that can be added to the article: [1]. Softlavender (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The TechCrunch piece was cited in the article, so my mistake. The link provided above is "https" whereas the one in the article is "http" which is why I didn't notice it when I a searched the url. Moreover, while I did read the article and thought that it was a promising source, I didn't feel it was enough to establish notability on it's own or in combination with any of the other sources. Which is why, I added the "BLP notability" template and started this discussion here, instead of nominating the file for deletion at WP:AFD. As for the other sources cited in the article and mentioned above, there are still quite a number of primary sources being cited so I think the "BLP Primary" template should remain; the Niemanlab.org source seems promising, so it probably should be added somewhere. I don't see the point in citing a photo and citing the same "UK Tech 100" article twice for the same content since the one citation seems enough to verify this, so I have removed the two redundant ones. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The TechCrunch article actually wasn't cited in the article until I added it 12 hours ago (I did a bunch of changes all in one edit, so that might have been confusing). There are other sources of significant coverage from reliable third-party sources, but it will take Googling to find them -- which is I why I have added the "easy search links" under the banner at the top of this page. Hope that helps everybody. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to clean things up a bit and adding so other sources. I've done a little clean up myself and will continue to look for better sources. i will also post an image request at c:COM:RI and WP:RI because there's no way to justify the non-free one being currently used in the main infobox and it will almost certainly be deleted as replaceable fair use per WP:FREER in the next day or so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I think the two citations to "100 coolest people in UK tech" are just to different anchors on the same website. If you scroll to the very top of [2], you'll see it's the same essentially webpage just al the slides shown on a single page in a different format. If you look at [3] you'll see it's the article's description and just the slide about Hurley. That is what I meant by redundant and why I don't think both are needed. Often online slideshows give the reader the option to view each slide separately or all together all on a single page, and I think that's what is being done here. The first citation (#5) is per slide, and the second citation (#6) is all of them together. One url is ".com.au" and the other is just ".com", but they are really the same article with the same information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Iphone 7 flaw dscovery

I came across this when searching for sources through London newspapers. Apparently, Hurley is credited with discovering a flaw in iPhone 7's sometime last year. It was also covered here, here, here as well as some other places. It's kinda of trivia-ish and I'm not sure where it would exactly go in the article (maybe a new section titled "IPhone 7 flaw" or something). Anyway, I'm just posting it here for feedback.-- Marchjuly (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting find, however I think it's a bit trivial. He could have been an unknown and posted the same thing on Twitter and then been noted as the person who flagged it up. There's a lot more to be gleaned from that very long TechCrunch article about his life and career. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Free Image

Hurley gave me permission through twitter to upload his image to wikimedia commons public domain.--ArniDagur (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@ArniDagur: Wikipedia does not accept that. Follow procedure for establishing fair use or public domain. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Care to elaborate? I followed all of the instructions given in the file wizard, and he DID give me explicit permission more than once to release the image to the public domain and put it on Wikipedia. I don't see the problem. --ArniDagur (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@ArniDagur: If Commons is going to accept the tweet as "proof" you can use the image that's their fault. So far as I know, we require an e-mail sent to OTRS to verify an image is public domain if it isn't specifically labeled such. I know because I've been raked over the coals more than once for not explicitly proving images are in the public domain. Your enthusiasm for the subject does not override our requirements and all the guidance you could ever need has been published. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@ArniDagur: I think Chris Troutman is making a valid point, so I have tagged the file with c:Template:License review so that a Commons' file reviewer or administrator can verify the licensing. Just for reference, generally it is the person who takes the photo, not the subject of the photo, who is considered to hold the copyright over it. Since Hurley is the subject of the photo, I have some concerns as to whether he is actually the copyright holder. If he's not, then he cannot license it as PD and Commons cannot accept it as such. Of course, it is possible that he took the photo himself (i.e., a selfie) or even hired/asked someone to take it on his behalf. A work-for-hire photo may include a copyright transfer agreement is some cases which means Hurley is the copyright holder. Commons tries to assume good-faith when it comes to file uplaods, but it will delete files per c:COM:PCP whenever there is a reasonable doubt. That's is why it might be a good idea for Hurley to send in a WP:CONSENT email to OTRS for verification purposes as explained in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Whether the tweet is considered sufficient could simply come down to a judgement call being made by a Commons administrator or the result of a c:COM:DR. Hurely also needs to understand that releasing the photo as PD means that he is essentially agreeing to allow anyone anywhere to download it at any time to use for any purpose, including commercial, and that once he agrees to such a license that he can't revoke it if he later changes his mind. Another way that Hurley can indicate is acceptance of such conditions is for him to clearly post a Commons compatible license on the same webpage as the file or make a clear declaration of intent on his webpage that he understands and agrees to Commons licensing requirements. Of course, he can only do this if he is the original copyright holder for the reasons explained in c:COM:LL. I've posted a lot above, so if you have any specific questions about the file's licensing, you can ask them at c:COM:VP/C.

Finally, one last thing about Commons and Wikipedia. Both are operated by the WP:WMF and there is a lot of similarities between the two; however, they are really separate projects with their own respective policies and guidelines. Since the file is on Commons, you need to comply with c:COM:L for the file to stay on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Changes

Hurley's "other names", based on edit summaries, appear to just be joke nicknames. Two are from a podcast I regularly listen to and they are not serious nicknames that are used outside of infrequent jokes. I would imagine the other name is similar, and believe all three should be removed.

In regards to Hurley's listed occupations, I'm not clear on what qualifies someone as a YouTube personality, but reviewing his channel shows that's currently used to host past Twitch live-streams and the last "vlog" style video was uploaded in late 2017. The channel also doesn't have a noteworthy number of subscribers. It believe removing this would be appropriate. -- Odin (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the appropriate wait time is for talk page discussion, but I'm going to go ahead with these changes now. -- Odin (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)