Deletion of Lucian Hudson

Comment: this would need to be edited down drastically, but in my view the governmetn positions (first at the UK's FCO and then as the UK's "first PM appointed webmaster" as {{U|Jeremy112233}}) are alone enough to indicate notability. When you add in the Marie Cure cancer center, the Open University position, and the chairmanship of the major "Liberal Judiasm" organization over several years, and the press coverage that comes with them, I think this clearly passes  and . It may well be paid editing, or since the subject is himself a communications pro, it may actually be an autobio.  All the press releases should go. But after looking at the sources now cites in the article and the additional ones linked in this discussion, I think this should stay
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: He's in Who's Who here:  http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whoswho/U41456 - this is absolutely minimum .  I don't understand why there are so many delete votes above and the only conclusion I can come to is that it is a negative reaction against  editors, which in this case is ill-advised.  Vote on the notability not the behaviour of others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:COI)

Comment: There is certainly no pass of rof. The article has the oleagenous gloss of a PR exercise, its size out of proportion to the importance of its subject. Even if it passes  it will have to be pruned or stubbified
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:GNG)

Comment: This page should not be subject to deletion, based on the subject meeting   (topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject), as well as  (the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"). This is based on reliable sources cited in the profile. These include, but are not limited to
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: per . This article (and others created by the same editor) has all the hallmarks of paid editing. I agree completely with {{u|DGG}} who on this subject wrote on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADGG&diff=597270257&oldid=597269673 his talk page: "The difficulty is that there is often just enough notability that a decent article could be written. This can put us in the absurd of having a dozen people spend time on the AfD & someone spend a hour or so rewriting, so he can collect his money
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: qualifies per  Point 6 as per Open University position,  Point 3 for his role as head of BBC World's Newsdesk, and arguing against  in this case, even if it were the only leg to stand on, is ridiculous
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMICS||WP:ARTIST||WP:GNG)