Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Lygo


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian Lygo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Winning a minor TV game show a record number of times does not make a person notable Tomintoul (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that he is notable. He needs more references, though. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - His achievement was notable at the time - mentioned frequently on radio and in the press + WP:NTEMP Jw6aa (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Cavell is clamoring for more sources but offers no suggestion as to where more might be found. This seems to be a textbook WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - here are some online references:, , , , plus the print media of the time would surely have material in relation to it. (Citing print media is allowed, by the way). - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment - the most reliable sources that we're going to find on this issue would be print media from the UK from the time period in question. Even then, a lot of reporting on TV shows is gossipy, unreliable, unsourced, or anonymously sourced, or sourced from TV stations' spin doctors, and often presented as the musings of the reporter rather than as ordinary news. The difficulty of finding sources, though, doesn't address the question of whether he is notable, which is what this AfD is about. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – There's a fair amount of coverage in print sources. I've added a sampling just now. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is not temporary. Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. The subject is not currently highly notable, the article is poorly written, and contains poorly written citations. However, the subject is notable enough for holding the worldwide record for most game show wins, as well as his involvement in the controversy over the restrictions set in the middle of his run. Cindamuse (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Famous for one event and not an important one at that.Tomintoul (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, since you are the nominator, your "delete" recommendation is already implied. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you don't state 'Delete' it's not tallied on the statistics page.Tomintoul (talk) 12:03, 5 August 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.