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.  —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Ian Usher

Ian Usher (  | 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 do not see how anything here is remotely suitable for an encyclopedia. I almost never use the term "vanity page", but I think it's the best description. That there are references does not matter, the more important policy is that we are not a personal website, and are not a tabloid. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment because I haven't made up my mind. I remember this story, it received widespread, international coverage, so since notability isn't temporary, it meets GNG. However, while I usually reserve this argument for an article I want kept, GNG is a guideline, not policy. Perhaps a more appropriate thought (recognizing isn't even a guideline) for this article is WP:TNT. It appears much more appropriate for Facebook than an encyclopedia. 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. He was famous for one event and has been living off it since. This is a tricky one for sure, there are lots of refs but they tend to note selling his life or derivatives. Deletion probably fits into some policy but I couldn't guess what. Szzuk ( talk) 22:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- If the Disney project comes to anything, we will probably need the article, but I am dubious of its present value. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep; I've seen a solid number of citations included BBC, ABC News, and coverage from CNN International that mentions him in notable fashion. These articles do not mention him in passing. Coverage from multiple reliable sources passes WP:GNG, if tone is an issue, which I in my opinion, has been resolved then the article can still be edited and corrected. I am citing WP:PRESERVE on this one. Valoem ^talk 18:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 21 March 2014 (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.