Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambell Kenneford

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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cambell Kenneford

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

Private person of very marginal notability, article is sourced solely to a couple of interviews given several years ago. No lasting notability, no reason to have an article, really. Also self-requested deletion by selfsame person, per [1]. Jayron32 02:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination. Marginal significance. - Taketa (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm skeptical about a one-edit account, not even via OTRS, claiming to be any particular person. Especially with pages like this around http://www.facebook.com/pages/Like-if-you-want-Cambell-Kenneford-removed-from-the-internet/370377908375

What is our policy on this? WP doesn't remove BLPs on request when its fickle whim decides to go after a person and will instead choose to doxx them (poor bloody Jim Hawkins for one, who never appeared in the Waily Fail or the Sun).

This is someone who appeared in national print media, the Huff Post and national TV. I have some sympathy for an attention-seeking teenager who then decides maybe they don't want it, after their Warhol is up; yet they're still running their twitter and instagram feeds so it's hardly as if they've relinquished fame. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is "If the article is about a person who isn't notable, we can delete it." --Jayron32 20:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to take such a simplistic view of notability, then their repeated mainstream media appearances make them WP:Notable. WP:Notability is also not WP:NOTTEMPORARY. So we might (for once) decide to delete a BLP on request (if you're gullible enough to believe such a simple request is from who it's claimed), but it's not for WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing since April 2012. I agree that the subject's own (purported) views are not relevant. She's still not notable. Maproom (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2014 (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.