Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Hughes(aka epredator)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ian Hughes(aka epredator)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Nakon 04:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - Article is extensively sourced to significant discussion in reliable publications, and was at the time it was nominated. The writing style is confusing and promotional, but there's no question that the guy passes the general notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Snow keep is only supposed to be used when it's clear consensus is going that way. One vote of one isn't really clear consensus. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's meant to be used when there's no reasonable chance of it going the other way, which is the case here. There are a great many reliable independent sources in the article; there's no basis whatsoever for arguing he's not notable.  I would have gone as far as Speedy Keep but there's no evidence that the nomination was malicious or disruptive; it's just careless. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources vary from definitely reliable to questionably reliable. Out of the reliable sources, the coverage varies between the entire article and a mention in an article about something else. I don't have time to go through every deletion discussion and decide whether or not the coverage is sufficient, but I would definitely say that anyone who thinks this coverage isn't enough to qualify as significant is entitled to their opinion. WP:SNOW gives a good snowball test: if (as you seem to be advocating) we close the debate now based on one person's assessment of the sources, I'd say there's fair chance that someone will later raise a reasonable objection that could change the outcome. Let's wait and see what other people say. If it's five or six consecutive keeps, fair enough. If there's any more deletes, they deserve to have their say. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable --Jeffmcneill (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: If kept, this article should be moved to Ian Hughes (media personality) or something. J I P  &#124; Talk 05:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - Well sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; I'm confident that he passes WP:BASIC. bobrayner (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.