Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Atkin (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Atkin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominating this for deletion. Any real notability comes from the video he created (which doesn't have an article). We should rethink his article now that the elections (where his video gained popularity) have long since passed. Vasant56 (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like he meets any of the notability requirements for a creative professional.

Since his video was a parody of another internet meme, maybe we should just reference him in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasant56 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 January 2011

Keep This is a well-referenced article and references #2 and #3 are strong. Notable for several viral videos (not one ) about politics in both Australia and the USA. I don't know why this nomination is unsigned, so I ask the nominator to identify themself. Cullen328 (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Properly and well-referenced article that is more than one-event. Coverage by Australian media about an Australian citizen for his initial and subsequent actions through continued coverage is plenty good enough. Meets WP:GNG. That something else does not have an article simply means that it lacked the coverage... and not that this fellow is then somehow non-notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources, so he meets the general notability guideline.--Beloved Freak 15:07, 8 January 2011 (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.