Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hogben (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hogben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

fails WP:BIO Launchballer 17:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominator. Nothing signifiant found about this person. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis the article has already been kept at a previous AfD. He certainly meets WP:GNG, although much of the available online news is about his 2006 court case. Though he is no longer a 'current' face on TV, he was much better known 15 years ago where, like the article says, he was often on antiques shows (and even had his own show). The article coud definitely do with a lot of cleaning up though. Sionk (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Michael Hogben is a well known and popular figure and is currently appearing on TV in an antiques program (that's why I looked him up). Stollyman (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that's not a good reason. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--there's already some coverage in the article (which is very poorly written), and there's more to be found with a Google News search. He passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG article should be reworked. WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Some parts of the article need work but passes notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seeing enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:17, 13 October 2019 (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.