Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stinson Hunter

:{{la|Stinson Hunter}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stinson_Hunter Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Stinson Hunter}})

I don't believe that this person has lasting notability and is a case of BLP1E - his efforts to out peadophiles. Beyond that I don't believe he meets GNG beyond this one event. Potential COI as well - page created by a MrsXHunter Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-known enough to be the subject of a recent documentary on national television. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether the documentary itself makes him notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article, the article in question is not adequately referenced — it relies solely on a single article in a gossip/entertainment/scandal tabloid, which is a class of publication that we do not accept as appropriate reliable sourcing for anything under any circumstances ever. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if the sourcing can be improved significantly, but no claim of notability ever entitles a person to keep an article that relies exclusively on one unacceptable source to support it. Delete unless proper sourcing can be located. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - per documentary. seem to pass wp:gng.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Page needs work for sure, reads semi-promotionally right now. Documentary notwithstanding, I'm seeing a lot of articles on subject in search. But this could be a case of WP:BLP1E possibly. For now, I think this page could use a thorough re-write using better sourcing and see where it stands. Jppcap (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2015 (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.