Deletion of Liam Hackett

Comment: Redirect''' - First, let me point out something to the people voting that this is by consensus, not by !vote count. There could be 10 delete votes and 1 keep vote and the rationale from the keep vote could be enough to keep the article (or vice versa). With that in mind, I would suggest coming up with policy based reasons to support your !vote. For me, I do not see this persons being notable independent of the nonprofit group that he founded. The references in the article are about the organziation, not him, and only mention him as part of the organization. While there is  about the organization, there isn't any for him. I would consider them passing mentions and notability is not . Also, some of the sources are the same as they talk about a study released by the organization, but for notability they can only be counted 1 time as they are references about the same report. Looks like notability masking and as a stand alone article, there is not  in  to meet . As such, article fails general notability guidelines and should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:INHERENT||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: or perhaps '''merge''' into Ditch the Label if there's anything worth keeping). The only web search result I've found of any significance is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bibek-bhandari/liam-hackett-it-does-get-_b_1746459.html this HuffPo article which in my opinion is insufficient. All other rssults I've found are either non-independent or just routine, passing mentions. Hence fails . Oh and, as a Brightonian, I've never heard of him
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: References to subject are from high quality sources, each published very recently. At least bordering notable enough and one could assume increasingly so.   . — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/94.193.236.94|94.193.236.94
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: Per above. As concerns , massively short
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: I originally reviewed the article and thought at the time that Liam Hackett passed the notability test because of references in Huffington Post and Pink News and the fact that he was interviewed on Radio 1, which implies that someone at the BBC thought he was a suitable spokesperson on the subject of bullying for national radio. Yes, he's synonymous with and notable because of the organisation he founded, but the same could be said of Michele Elliott (Kidscape) and Camila Batmanghelidjh (Kids Company) – albeit they are more established figures. I think  does come into this and I don't really understand the argument (or the source) that  bests that in this case, so I'd welcome clarification of that point. There is plenty that could be done to improve the page and address the many valid concerns expressed – for instance, removing all links to his marketing company and paring back hard. Deletion seems the nuclear option and Wikipedia does say on the subject of deletion that if a page can be improved this should be solved through regular editing. Is this really such a basket case that it can't be remediated through judicious editing? Finally, I don't think the points about the choice of picture have particular weight or relevance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:POTENTIAL||WP:BLP)