Talk:George Randolph Hearst III/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about George Randolph Hearst III. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
References
All of the references cited are dead links, except for #3. - Ellen (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Notable?
How notable is this person, really? Is there anything that makes him notable - as being related to a famous person doesn't do it? Please see WP:BIO before replying... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree with you that being related to a famous person wouldn't do it. But being big wig for some big companies? That might do it. -- Ben (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- He is the Director of the second-largest NBC affiliate owner and the largest ABC affiliate group. He is the member of a family who has their own wikipedia category. [[Category:Hearst family]] How much more notable would he have to be? Jerry lavoie 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's up for afd now in any case. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion result changed
Here's why (copied from User talk:W.marsh):
George Randolph Hearst III
Hello! In your closing of the AfD on George Randolph Hearst III, you confused me. In closing the debate, you state the result was "keep". When you a few seconds later edit the talk page, you state the result was "no consensus". What's up with that? (I'd rather see it as "no consensus" as then I have some basis for re-nominating it in a few months or so - but if it's a keep I don't think I'll bother.) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see now that Ben had a similar concern. Sorry for the double-post, then. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm I dunno, I intended to close it as a keep. What's on the AfD is more important than what's on the talk page, which is unofficial, I just made a mistake apparently. I'll admit this one really could have gone either way, from a pure numerical standpoint at least it could have been either. But I did intend it as a keep. At any rate, it really shouldn't matter that much with a future AfD whether it was a no consensus or a keep. --W.marsh 22:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please explain what you mean by "from a pure numerical standpoint?" -- Ben (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- More than 66% or so of people wanting to keep is a rule of thumb for a "keep" closure. In the end only 2 people actually wanted to delete the article outright. But it's just a rule of thumb... the numbers alone don't determine the result. --W.marsh 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. And thanks for the earlier response, too. -- Ben (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- More than 66% or so of people wanting to keep is a rule of thumb for a "keep" closure. In the end only 2 people actually wanted to delete the article outright. But it's just a rule of thumb... the numbers alone don't determine the result. --W.marsh 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please explain what you mean by "from a pure numerical standpoint?" -- Ben (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Genealogical Fraud
For details on the genealogical fraud that was attempted, how it is disproven and the action GRH3 took to close down hearstmania.com see here Wjhonson 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)