Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2012 April 1
2012 April 3 >

2 April 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bridgette B (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This actress did not pass WP:PORNBIO at the time of deletion, but she does now here's why. I asked the closing admin to unsalt the article but s/he didn't respond. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of people from Republic County, Kansas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It seems that the person who closed the discussion did not interpret arguments correctly and failed to thoroughly read the discussion. I personally expected it to be relisted or closed with no consensus. Additional discussion after the closure can be found at the talk page of the editor who closed the discussion. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahh, my first DRV. As the closer of the AfD, most of my thoughts can be found on my talk page, as Paul McDonald mentioned. Essentially, nearly every editor except Paul McDonald (the author of the article) mentioned merging as an acceptable outcome. Additionally, no one adequately refuted the arguments that:
In addition, Paul McDonald seems to believe that the AfD should be invalidated because he added several entries to the article right before it closed. I disagree with that assertion, as the problem with the article was never that it was too short. The problem is that the main article is not too long to require a spin-off. There is a subtle difference. —SW— speak 22:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks completely acceptable to me. The only thing I would change is to get rid of the "List of people from Republic County, Kansas" subheading and all the individual occupational subheadings, and I would probably try to trim down the prose (since those details are likely already available in the individual bio articles) and format the whole section into a list format rather than a prose/list combination. —SW— squeal 15:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't trim the prose too much; one of the main benefits/purposes of listing is to annotate the entry's relationship to the list, drawing forth the connections from the individual biographies to describe their shared locale in one place. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prose the "prose" was added because the nominator wanted it added and held out Blackford County, Indiana as an example.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, relist, or just ignore it and split the list off again later. As I said in the AFD, this AFD should never have been started because deletion of what is at minimum a valid subsection of Republic County, Kansas is not an option, and whether this was small enough to be comfortably maintained in that article is not a deletion matter but one for normal editing and discussion. So either way I hold little stock in this AFD as binding upon future decisions to keep or not keep the list merged if editors so decide.

    SnottyWong has misinterpreted (or failed to read the entirety of) WP:CFORK, because even if a splitoff ("often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage") is not "necessary", that does not then mean it's necessarily a "content fork," a comparably pejorative term for duplicative articles (particularly those that exist to evade consensus on the true article or push a POV).

    WP:LISTN is also completely irrelevant to this kind of navigation list (regardless of whether its text observes that at present, but we're not lawyers here anyway to build cases on nothing but policy/guideline language in the abstract, as the AFD nominator clearly did). This is clear from AFD after AFD, not to mention WP:CLN explaining that such lists exist to complement categories and nav templates, for reader and editor utility, and they are subdivided and split off on that basis (see, again, WP:CFORK re: splitoffs, justified purely "as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage"; Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people also discusses notability only in terms of the lists' entries and not as "a group").

    List of people from Kansas is very long and is organized by field of accomplishment. It is simply not reasonable to claim, for example, that if we had 500 articles on notable "artists from Kansas" we still must show they are notable as a group to split off from that list. Nor is it any more reasonable to claim that an alternate organization of lists of people by locality within Kansas can only exist if, as a topic, that particular subset satisfies GNG as a subset apart from the notability of each entry. Regardless, in neither case is there a consensus expressed in that AFD claiming this was an inappropriate content fork or "violated" LISTN, wrongly or rightly; every person apart from the nominator who !voted for merger did so purely on the basis of the current length of the article, which expanded further after those comments were made, which is why I told the closer that a relist might be a good idea.

    So I'm afraid SnottyWong has done a poor job here of interpreting and applying the discussion rather than super!voting, and of interpreting and applying policy/guidelines/things-that-actually-improve-the-encyclopedia, but I think it ultimately is harmless either way because it is futile. If the content is preserved in the county article, no damage done for now, and no one needs anyone's permission to later decide again "this is just too big to go here, let's split it off" after it has expanded further. postdlf (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I could find 500 notable artists with blonde hair, does that entitle me to create List of artists with blonde hair? That is exactly why WP:LISTN does apply to this list, and why lists must not be non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. If the list fits better into to List of people from Kansas than it does in Republic County, Kansas, then it should simply be merged there, as I pointed out in the closing statement. —SW— confer 05:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no one but the nom even claimed LISTN was a problem here; just about everyone else at least implied that if only the list were longer, it could appropriately stand alone. So you're not even talking about the consensus in this AFD discussion any more, and the fact that you can only imagine protecting us from a trivial list parade of horribles by invoking WP:LISTN really isn't interesting here, in part because you were not an AFD participant (we apparently don't tolerate a list of blond people in blond either, so a separate sublist by occupation scheme is rather moot).

When you look at the lists that are created, maintained, and repeatedly kept at AFD, do you actually believe even most would satisfy LISTN or are meaningfully analyzed by LISTN? Do you honestly believe there is a consensus to delete or merge those if they cannot satisfy LISTN? "Sorry, we can't list notable alumni of that particular notable college, because you can't find sources that discuss them all together as a group." That's what you're claiming. I don't see how you can argue that LISTN is the one gateway that all lists must pass through in light of WP:CLN in particular, as well as WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:SAL. If we have the articles, then we are going to index them by important shared facts, both by lists and by categories. Your approach isn't even coherent, let alone representative of practice. If you can't claim that "people from X" is notable as a group, is a list of notable people verifiably from X then condemned to forever remain within the place article, never to be split off regardless of length? How does that make the encyclopedia better? postdlf (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, we're not talking about blonde-haired artists here. We're talking about people from a particular county. One topic being invalid (assuming that it is) does not necessarily mean that another largely unrelated topic would also be invalid. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The blonde example was just to illustrate that it is trivial to find a list of notable people with a common trait (i.e. having blonde hair, or being from Republic County, KS). There must be some test we can apply to the common trait to ensure that it is an "important shared fact". That test is WP:LISTN. The nominator (who also counts as a voter) is the only one who links to WP:LISTN, however his point is never refuted adequately by anyone, and the topic of the notability of the list is discussed by other editors throughout the discussion. I'm not just pulling this out of thin air, nor am I supervoting.
If you believe that LISTN is too high of a bar for lists on Wikipedia to attain, then change the guideline. Until then, lists must satisfy LISTN, regardless of how much you rant and rave about how much you dislike it. CLN doesn't trump LISTN, in fact they are scarcely related. CLN describes how categories, lists, and navigation templates coexist and work with one another, and gives no advice on how to determine if a list itself is appropriate. Additionally, CLN is not used as a rebuttal to LISTN by anyone in the discussion, nor is it even discussed by any anyone except in response to the last vote which suggests that the list should be converted to a category. WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:SAL are also not discussed in the AfD, and are equally irrelevant. LISTPEOPLE discusses the inclusion criteria for individual entries in a list of people, and SAL discusses how to format standalone lists.
Anyway, I think I've discussed this enough, my thoughts on the subject should be well known by now. I'm going to stop contributing to this thread and see what other editors have to say. —SW— gossip 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(paraphrasing) "Guideline language is binding law, and must be imposed in all instances regardless of its relationship to other guidelines, relationship to actual practice, and abstracted from any concrete considerations of whether such application actually improves the encyclopedia. Any invocation of guideline language by a deletion nomination that is completely ignored by the commenters and therefore unsupported by the discussion is nevertheless 'unrefuted' and therefore binding in its application, regardless of whether the express reliance of the commenters upon other guidelines and considerations may imply disagreement. Certain content may be deleted or merged regardless of its particular merit as a prophylactic measure against other unrelated content being created regardless of whether anyone is trying to create that other content." So that's how Wikipedia works. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also feeling a little sheepish at having not brought this up before: even if we are going to treat guideline language as holy writ, WP:LISTN itself makes my point that it is incomplete and doesn't apply to all lists: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as 'Lists of X of Y') or whether there are other means of forming stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not." There are certainly lists to which the notability of the group as a group is the appropriate question; lists of people by locality are not among them. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll bite when you say "The nominator (who also counts as a voter) is the only one who links to WP:LISTN, however his point is never refuted adequately by anyone..." 1 under what logic do you eliminate [1] [2] [3]? You may think they don't hold up, but no one ever said "those sources are not adequate enough" or anything close to that. Those sources were ignored by not only those supporting the deletion of the article, but by you as the closing admin as well! 2 since when does not having placed the tag [[WP:LISTN]] in an argument invalidate the argument? If someone has already linked to the notability argument, me not linking back to that same notability argument in response does not negate my argument. 3 when you say "Until then, lists must satisfy LISTN, regardless of how much you rant and rave about how much you dislike it" exactly who are you talking to? No one that I can see has made an argument against WP:LISTN. This is just another clear example of how the closing editor is not reading the arguments made. And that is why this AFD should at least be re-listed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC This close doesn't, to quote Tim, "strike me as wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated, dead fish," but neither is it a proper reading of consensus. Policy doesn't require a merge here (if the list would fit well into the parent article is a better issue for the talk page than for AfD) and in any case the expansion of the list article would seem to have negated some of the arguments for merging. So without a real guideline/policy-based reason for merging, the merge !votes cannot be said to be stronger than the keep !votes Also, the delete nomination and !vote are clearly contrary to our guidelines and can be safely discounted. So we end up with a decision between keep and merge that is best settled somewhere other than AfD. Hobit (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I think a merge is a reasonable conclusion of the AfD discussion - it was a solution suggested by all except the author. As the original nominator, I should note that I agree with Scottywong's analysis above - the crucial point for me driving the nomination for deletion of this list is the question of its notability as a standalone list. "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". We have not yet found any sources that discuss the Republic County's residents as a notable group, much less any list containing the contemporary notables on this list, with the exception of a single book from 100 years ago (and which is a history of Republic County written by a resident, and thus not independent). Try Googling "famous people from Kansas" and you get thousands of hits from a diversity of sources; try the same thing with almost any US county, and you'll likely get very little - it seems the outside world doesn't usually group notability by County. To respond directly to Paul's question above, I did try to dispute earlier those sources per WP:LISTN, and would do so again. We have 3 sources: 1) A book about Republic county, written by a local, containing some short bios of locals, the majority of whom would not be notable per WP:GNG. 2) A bibliography about Republic County; the same bibliographies exist for every Kansas county, so nothing distinguishes Republic County here or suggests that a list of its notable residents is encyclopedic, as opposed to List of people from Kansas. 3) A general history of Kansas, which happens to be organized by County. Again, there is nothing specific in this book about Republic County that distinguishes it from any of the other 100 counties of Kansas, and nothing to suggest that the grouping of notables by county was anything more than a convenience based on the organization of the chapters. Finally, I might suggest that people take a reasonable perspective on this - the information is not being lost, and no one's work is going to waste.--Karl.brown (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment and quote from WP:LISTN above re: its inapplicability to this kind of "list of X of Y." You've also failed to explain why this county needs to be distinguished from any other Kansas county to have a list of people from there; it could be the only such list, or every county could have such a list if there are enough notable people from each of them. Regardless, no one else in the discussion supported your opinions on these issues. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "no one else in the discussion supported your opinions on these issues" I suppose that people disagreeing with you has never held you up, so I guess I won't let it hold me up! :) I'm afraid I don't agree with your analysis of WP:LISTN. I don't think List of People from X falls under the "List of X of Y" - the example from WP:NOTDIR given is much more specific: ""People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" - in this case, we only have a single categorization, not a cross-categorization (Baseball players from County X would be such a cross-categorization). And WP:LISTN is clear in any case: "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." To answer your other question, the reason I suggested we need to distinguish it from other counties is because the evidence presented is Kansas-generic, and is just sorted by county: 1) a bibliography of the county, which mirrors bibliographies from other counties and 2) a history of Kansas, which is grouped by county. Neither of these, IMHO, establishes the notability of the list of people from this particular county as something which is spoken of by independent, reliable sources. As to your point that 'every county' could have such a list, this is where we happen to disagree. I believe that with enough research, one could indeed find enough notable people to justify a list for every county in the US, all 3,000 of them - after all, almost everyone in the US was born in a county, and possibly went to high school in a different county, then worked in a 3rd, so every notable person could thus show up on half a dozen different lists! We could also create such lists, for high schools, and elementary schools, and neighborhoods, so on and so forth. But to do so would be extremely un-encyclopedic - our job is not to simply collect and collate information just because it happens to be true - our job is to reflect how the outside world sees and values information. There is plenty of evidence that 'notable people from Kansas' is spoken of in the wider world, but we have zero evidence that this list of 'notable people from county X' is sourced by any independent, reliable sources.--Karl.brown (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So it's fine and encyclopedic to list what notable people are from Kansas, but if you actually sort or subdivide it by where specifically in Kansas they are from, such as by the first-order political subdivision of counties, it is suddenly unencyclopedic? That makes sense to you? So Category:People by county in the United States is an unencyclopedic category structure and should be deleted? postdlf (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What makes it unencyclopedic is not whether it is useful or true or convenient for us, but whether other people outside of our wiki-bubble have ever made such a list. They have made Kansas lists, but they haven't made 'county X' lists. Any in any case, category creation adheres to a different standard. There are many categories created that would never be accepted as articles. Please let's not get into WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION, otherwise we'll be here all day! :)--Karl.brown (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Except that other people outside of our "Wiki-bubble" have made such lists. This is really starting to feel like "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" arguing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Guys, I feel like some contributors to this discussion are hurling around accusations about other editors, discussing editors rather than articles, and generally not assuming good faith. Can we try to keep this civil, leave the emotion out of it, and just discuss the situation like calm, rational adults? Thanks. —SW— yak 18:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Karl, we don't tolerate unencyclopedic categories any more than we do unencyclopedic lists, and we are actually more stringent in practice regarding categories than lists. If it is encyclopedic as a category or as a section within a larger article, it cannot be simultaneously unencyclopedic as a standalone list. What is encyclopedic or not is the topic and organizing principle, not the method of organizing. There may be other reasons not to have something as a list as well as a category (whether as standalone or as part of a larger article) or vice versa (list ok, category not) but that's a different conversation. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Interpreting that discussion as rough consensus to merge is completely reasonable. Reyk YO! 21:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This close is not clearly erroneous. That's the end of the matter, as far as I am concerned. T. Canens (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a perfectly valid close. It's not, as Tim says above me, clearly erroneous, and demanding people present a shrubbery and chop down the tallest tree in the wood with a herring to prove their point of view also isn't reasonable. Once is enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question is it then perfectly acceptable for closing editors to completely ignore answers to questions? For example, if one editor states that "No reliable sources discuss the topic" and then another editor provides those sources, is the closing editor free to ignore the sources brought in--and if so, under what terms and reasoning? I'm asking this because that's what happened.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but 1. the closer can use his discretion to say "Even with those sources, I don't see enough to change my mind" and 2. while it's certainly fine to make requests, repeated accusatory walls of text aren't helpful. Brevity is the soul of wit and all that... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You;re kidding, right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How so? These sorts of closes require admin discretion; it's of course reasonable to question the decision that was made, but admins have to make certain judgement calls to determine consensus. Arguing that admins can't use their own heads in determining these matters doesn't make any sense; that's part of the reason we elect admins in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've already written too much here, but I think the biggest problem is the rationale he gave for the merge: he found a consensus that the list of people by county should not exist even in principle, which simply isn't reflected in the discussion (note that at first he wrote that lists of people by county shouldn't exist at all, until I complained and he struck that wording) and is in my view more his personal opinion than any fair reading of consensus. At most there is a consensus that it should be merged at this time (thus leaving it open to splitting off again after it expands further). If he would add those three words to his close, I think I would have much less of an objection. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what this is all about? You're looking at the miswording in my closing statement (which I immediately struck and corrected when you brought it to my attention) and using it as a rationale for claiming that the rest of the close was "my personal opinion" rather than a fair reading of consensus? And why would I need to add "at this time" to my closing statement? There is no such thing as a permanent consensus at AfD, every time an AfD is closed it is assumed that it is a reading of consensus "at this time", not forever and ever. Surely you've read WP:Consensus can change. I can't believe I have to explain these things to someone who has been around as long as you have. —SW— squeal 16:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it some thought and yes, that's what it ultimately comes down to for me. But you've misunderstood the qualifier I'm going for. It's not a question of the consensus "at this time", but rather the state of the list article "at this time". The difference is your current rationale makes it seem like the consensus was against the topic (especially in your closing statement's first version), which would suggest we'd need a new consensus demonstrating that a list of people from that county is now OK to prevent "enforcement" of the AFD regardless of the size of the list. The consensus was instead at most just against keeping it separate given the list's current size relative to the county article, which would mean editors could split it off again once the list expanded enough regardless of the AFD. So yes, the qualifier of "at this time" would make me find your close acceptable. You should consider that a compromise from me wanting it to be relisted or closed as "no consensus". postdlf (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I disagree that it's necessary, I don't see a need for compromise at this time (since the close is being endorsed), and I honestly see it more as backpedaling than compromising. —SW— communicate 17:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. While I prefer merge to no consensus if a consensus exists, what I see here is weaker than I would like. Only Karl.brown interacted with Paulmcdonald, so it's difficult to see whether the expansion swayed anyone (Metropolitan90 supported merging here). Postdlf is correct that talk page discussion should have been tried before AfD, but his arguments were procedural and rightfully ignored once the AfD was underway. Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closer seems to have adequately closed this discussion and I can find no fault in his rational. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

As a first approximation, I classify the opinions voiced here as follows:

  • endorse keep closure: 32
  • reclose as no consensus: 1
  • reclose as no consensus and delete per WP:BIODELETE: 12
  • delete because the subject is non-notable or for other reasons: 5

I discount the five opinions that I have listed last because the instructions above tell us:

"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate."

Consequently, we disregard opinions that simply reiterate arguments made in the deletion discussion; the issue here is only to determine whether the outcome of the discussion was correctly assessed. What follows concerns only the discussion about that issue.

It is evident from the numbers given above that there is no consensus to overturn the closure and to find that there was no consensus, that the subject is borderline notable, and that the closer's judgment (as WP:BIODELETE allows) should be exercised in such a way as to favor deletion. In situations such as this one, where policy asks for a judgment call, I have no basis in policy to determine which side's arguments are stronger, and must therefore refrain from weighing the arguments.

Because we therefore lack a consensus to overturn the closure (instead, we are much closer to a rough consensus to the contrary, i.e., that the closure was correct), and because nobody argues for a relist, the outcome of this deletion review is that the "keep" closure stands. –  Sandstein  20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is a body of opinion that the AfD discussion did not reach a clear consensus, that the subject of this BLP is not a public figure (he is a local radio broadcaster with an audience reach of less than 50,000), and that as he has requested deletion then WP:BIODELETE applies. There has been discussion with the closer, who has indicated acceptance of a DRV. It is worth noting that a significant number of the keep comments were not based on notability or policy, but on the principle that it is up to Wikipedia to decide who has a Wikipedia article rather than the subject of the article. There is an uncomfortable sense of WP:Point about such comments that should have been taken into consideration. The subject's notability appears to run on a scale from non-notable to borderline, so assertions of "clear notability" need to balanced against arguments that notability is not supported by evidence (there is only one cite for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that is a local paper). A steady reading of the discussion and the circumstances should lead to either a close for Delete or No Consensus leading to deletion by BIODELETE. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is nothing much wrong with the current version of article, but Pigsonthewing should now have a formal topic ban after adding where Jim Hawkins lives to the article, despite being personally asked by Jimbo to steer clear. I really can't fathom why this is such an issue for Pigs, who is risking damaging the whole BLP system by doing this. While I agree that Jim Hawkins has marginal notability, my decision is Keep and a topic ban for Pigs. Enough has been said about this already.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You made me look at what Andy has added to the article expecting an identifyable address to be given. For a local radio presenter coming from elsewhere to state that he lives in the county that he broadcasts for is while not exactly needed (although of interest to the locals ie "he is one of us now") but also not not damaging or even stalking. Given the size on Shopshire I'd venture a guess that no-one would start a house to house search through the county on the basis of the article. There is more chance of running into him accidentially (waving to Gina Jones) Agathoclea (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is no great surprise to learn the name of the county where Jim Hawkins lives. The real problem is that Pigsonthewing has now set off a fresh round of thrown handbags and toys at Talk:Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) which is only going to annoy Jim Hawkins even more when he reads it. Let's be honest, Pigs has been the main source of trouble for this article, and he has violated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT once too often.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...so, this whole thing is about sticking it to Andy? ...because Jimbo asked him to stop, or something? I'm not accusing, I'm just asking for clarification, bacause I'm actually trying to understand what the heck is going on here.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This presenter was clearly notable as they were a national radio host previously. The continued statement that they are a local radio host of a small listening area is a case of ignoring that notability is not temporary. This was a valid close. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This close does not "strike me as wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated, dead fish". T. Canens (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It was a good close. It doesn't matter if you think some of the keep votes were wrong-headed. The closer correctly identified the nub of the issue. For BIODELETE to kick in, the subject has to be a "non-public figure" and, although some claimed this to be the case, it was reasonable of the closer to say that there was no consensus to that effect. Deleting for failing GNG is a separate question and it should be obvious to anyone that there was no consensus in that case. There is no flaw in the reasoning. FormerIP (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closer personally would not have wanted the article to stay but could see a policy based consensu not to delete on blpbio grounds. Certainly the discussion went that way and was clearly based on policy. Reasons to delete where usually accompanied with comments like - "it should be policy" or "he is notable, but". Good call. A LOUD minority makes no consensus. Agathoclea (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn
Collapsed list of names to avoid the appearance of 11 calls to overturn, Tarc (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Crossmr
  • Parrot of doom
  • Doc9871
  • Pigsonthewing
  • Oculi
  • Edinburgh Wanderer
  • Silver Seren
  • Nomoskedasticity
  • Fylbecatulous
  • Stormie
  • Orange Mike
  • I count the 11 above as taking more of an interest in preserving the Wikipedia's right to keep a biography of anyone, anywhere, and anytime than in taking an honest measure of Jim Hawkins' notability. Discard these and 2 WP:SPA votes and IMO we're at a consensus to delete per WP:BLPDELETE. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I too have been misrepresented and incorporated into a view I did not take; therefore I've brought my own statement: It's too doggone difficult to retrieve it, so here's my quoted remark: "Keep on principle. He is deserving of an article by being a BBC broadcaster. If he doesn't want to be noteworthy he shouldn't be on public radio. His remarks on his facebook page thread are coming across as rather menacing and portray anger. If we delete BLP's because of threats and anger, we might as well just throw in the towel on having articles on anything other than inanimate objects. Please just article or topic ban any and all offenders. Fylbecatulous talk 14:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)" I took a measure of the subject's notability and agreed that it was so, due to his status as a BBC broadcaster on public radio. My argument was regarding the extreme measures the subject was going to to get a perfectly valid article deleted because of his whims; and that articles should not be deleted over temper tantrums. I asked for an article / topic ban for offenders and this is still my suggestion as the solution. As well, I request that my name be stricken from the closed and collapsed list above. Respectfully, Fylbecatulous talk 23:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good Close The AfD proposal was never one of a lack of notability though acknowledging that the notability was limited was done by both camps. The Closer summed this up and despite suggesting a close of delete would be the better choice, acknowledged that the policy based arguments for a keep were stronger and had to follow the consensus for that. As the closer suggested - an RfC on the pertinent policy would have better chance of success than further AfDs/DRs. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly meets notability criteria; closing admin clearly made the right decision, based on the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- these discussions usually turn on whether the close was a reasonable decision in light of deletion policy, a reasonable exercise of the admin's discretion. This is plainly what we have here. Even if one thinks that WP:BIODEL applies here, that passage only says that no-consensus AfDs of non-public figures may be closed as delete, not must be closed as delete. Usually when an admin closes an AfD with a remark that says "it's not how I would have voted myself, but...", this is taken as a sign of integrity -- and so it should be here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You people are weird. I've just sent this email to whoever 'Wifione' is -

Who are these so-called 'editors'? Why should the people who've been stalking, bullying and harassing me - and have been doing so again today! - have any say in what happens to the article?

Hooray for policies. Does common human decency come into this anywhere? Or am I going to get the same response I've had for five years, the borderline-fundamentalist 'that's not how Wikipedia works'?

My capacity to work has been affected by the psychological strain this is putting on me. You people are making me ill, and compromising my ability to work. Tell me how you feel about that.

And: would you have reached the same conclusion about the article had you had to put your real name to it? What possible 'sensitive issues' can Wikipedia have?

j — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.136.82 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't get an answer in the AfD, so i'm still wondering. What exactly is wrong with having your birth date? Why is your birth date being known causing you "psychological strain"? SilverserenC 20:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilverSeren, by policy he and every other biography subject like him has the right not to have his birth date in the article, and not to be harassed over that choice by editors like you. --JN466 20:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true and we have removed it because of that. But when he claims that the inclusion of such a thing is causing psychological strain, then we need an explanation to back up that claim or we're not going to give it any weight, especially considering the information in question is a matter of public record. SilverserenC 20:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
j, what I have difficulty understanding is why you find people writing about you on the Internet such a difficult thing to deal with. It's not as if your article contains derogatory comments or unfair allegations about you. Perhaps if you explained that a little more, people might come to appreciate your point-of-view. At present, if someone were to ask me "why does he want his article deleted?", all I could answer is "I don't really know". Why would I support deletion if no-one has given me a reason?
As far as "stalking, bullying and harassing" goes, I don't think many WP editors would condone behaviour of that type, but I also haven't seen evidence of it. You should certainly make a detailed complaint if you feel it has been the case (probably by emailing this guy). But I think it's a separate issue from whether your article should be deleted.
I do agree that your date of birth should be a dead issue by now and I wish Silver seren had not just brought it up again.
Thanks. FormerIP (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FormerIP, instead of wishing to have everything served on a platter to you, why don't you take a few hours and go through the entire history of the article, and its talk page. Bear in mind that both histories may have gaps, because I believe there have been oversights. --JN466 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you think that would be enlightening, Jayen. From the history, I can work out that the subject wants his article deleting, but I can't work out why. FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it has frequently contained garbage, and there is no mechanism in place to prevent it from containing garbage again? JN466 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a Wikipedia article, after all. But I'm not seeing any garbage (it certainly can't have been a frequent problem) and AFAICT the only oversighted content is the date of birth.FormerIP (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only brought it up because he keeps repeating psychological stress without explaining why. SilverserenC 20:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does this have to do with what DRV is about? SilverserenC 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An absence of national, let alone international, coverage means that BIODELETE applies. The AfD was No consensus, which should default to delete, given the subject's wishes. --JN466 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's line two of the sacred text BIODELETE: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." This article is neither (a) poorly sourced, nor (b) of an unknown, non-public figure, nor (c) the subject of a discussion in which no editor opposes the deletion. BIODELETE applies in this case not at all. This is actually an appeal for WP:IAR on the basis of the article subject squawking really loudly. At least call it what it is. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've posted this here three times and the answer is the same each time: WP:BIODELETE contains *two* situations where articles may be deleted. You quoted one of them. The one we are concerned with is the other one, which is obviously not the same thing; for one thing, it only requires no consensus, not "no editor opposing the deletion". Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Since DRV is meant to be a review on whether the AfD was closed properly and is not meant to be AfD part 2, I don't see any way in which the closer closed improperly. The close was well reasoned and explained the consensus decision. There's nothing to overturn here. SilverserenC 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - carefully reasoned and balanced decision; and by the way, anonymous IP purporting to be "Hawkins", I am known to most people by the same name I use here; and my legal name is right there on my userpage for anybody to see. I reject and spurn any accusation that I'm "hiding behind" the name most people know me by. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or the alternative, Lord Inali of Tanasi *chortle!* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.136.82 (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the decision to keep, and delete the article. The AfD result was no consensus. See User:SlimVirgin/JH for the numbers (45 keep, 34 delete), and although numbers alone don't determine an outcome, they're also not irrelevant.

    For any other article, this would have resulted in a keep. But for a borderline BLP, where the subject has requested deletion, a no-consensus outcome triggers WP:BIODELETE, which is policy. It says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." I asked Wifione why he had not followed that, and he replied that he regarded the AfD result to be a keep, but it's very hard to see how he reached that conclusion, either by looking at numbers or arguments.

    Since the close of the AfD, there has been some poor behaviour at the article. Pigsonthewing, someone the subject feels (rightly or wrongly) is cyberstalking him, has started editing it again, despite requests from many editors that he stop. And someone else has started another provocative discussion on the talk page about the subject's date of birth, something the subject has complained about in the past.

    In short, it looks as though Wikipedia can't be trusted to take a mature approach in this case, and for that reason, as well as the procedural ones, the AfD decision ought to be overturned. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sorry, but is it really so much to ask for an explanation on why such information is causing him psychologcial stress? A statement which he keeps repeating everywhere without explaining himself. SilverserenC 21:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Silver seren, I've been going back and forth about how much I want to (or should) get-into-it, as I have a great deal of sympathy and I believe empathy for this person. Now, regarding your request for an explanation, I could try to do it from my perspective, but sadly, I have a feeling it just won't work. That is, this is the sort of situation where if someone doesn't understand, it's very difficult to explain it to them (i.e. the old dismissal "If you have to ask, you'll never know", though that's a harsher tone than I want to take here). What I suspect will happen is that starting from the stance that he shouldn't feel stress, any explanation of why he does, will simply be met with some variant of stating that he's wrong and Wikipedia shouldn't listen to his wrongness. You need only take a look at some of the statements around here to see how likely that is. Thus, why should he do that? And why should I do that? If this sort of madhouse doesn't at least give you an inkling of why there's stress, well, recursively, that's the problem. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk)
    • You precede reference to my edits with a mention of "poor behaviour at the article", despite them being no such thing. Even if they were, that's irrelevant to DRv, as noted by Silver seren, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. The closing admin gave more than adequate explanation as to why they were closing as they did. he nub of the issue was this subject is notable. Separate issues (such as the frankly stupid editors who keep adding his date of birth or whatever) can be dealt with via blocking and page protection. I don't know why it's become a bugbear for some people that we absolutely must have to have his birthdate in there, but that aside, the closure of the AfD was correct, followed procedure, and was was explained sufficiently. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • the nub of the issue was this subject is notable That is precisely the error. Someone who only attracts local and primary-source coverage is nowhere near being so notable that an encyclopedia would be deficient in not having an article on him. And given the long and sorry article history, this article should go. A major celebrity can be expected to put up with rubbish like this – they have staff for dealing with this – but not someone in Jim's position. --JN466 21:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I have followed this quite closely and I sympathise with the stress the subject feels about having people write about him on the Internet. Nevertheless, the community has spoken and the result was keep. I'd encourage SV and anyone else who is concerned about particular users' behaviours to challenge that in the proper way. DRV is not the appropriate venue for this. --John (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Delete: check the stats for that page. If they are right, and I expect they are, the article is almost never visited. In other words, nobody is keeping an eye on it, he is not notable enough. Meanwhile he is living with the knowledge that people can play games there at his expense any time and he'll have to keep an eye on it himself i.e. he is a captive audience. That's bullying. McOoee (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's recent and can change to 0 once this storm is over. Check the history page stats. Those tell the real story. He is non-notable clearly. McOoee (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously using page stats to determine notability? SilverserenC 22:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should rely instead on opinions expressed here? Stats offer an objective criterion of public interest. Public interest is a fair measure of notability. Or do you think the public has got it wrong and this subject should be notable? McOoee (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider them any more useful than google hits. There are plenty of highly notable topics (such as in history or science) that are unlikely to be read often on Wikipedia, but that doesn't affect their notability. SilverserenC 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing a radio "personality" to a scientific phenomenon about which people ought to be informed? Are you seriously comparing Google hits to history page stats as a criterion for decisions affecting WP? Unfortunately this debate is one of those issues that has built up a negative momentum and the bulk of opinion here is a measure of nonsense. Delete. McOoee (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing is that your opinion isn't addressing what DRV is about, so will be subsequently dismissed by the closer. SilverserenC 22:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better still is the fact that WP is not a democracy. Therefore a few voices can prevail in the end. Looking at the numbers here, it's still about even, so that gives me even more hope that reason will prevail. McOoee (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case there is any confusion, I'm talking about the page view statistics. Work your way through those month by month. There are some sudden spikes in the number of hits, generated by WP's internal dynamics (a bit like a news service making an event newsworthy by reporting it). Otherwise it's a desert. I usually edit arcane articles on classical literature, but none of those ever scores less than 5 hits a day. If they did, I'd give up in despair. Number of hits is even more telling when we are talking about someone whose only claim to notability is his public profile as a radio personality. McOoee (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not going to express any opinion here as a protest. I don't like what Tarc has been allowed to do above, which appears to be tampering with an open consensus process by "naming and shaming". There is too much interest by those working with banned users off-wiki for anyone to feel comfortable that they will not be harassed or ridiculed for their opinion. This DRV is an example of an increasing climate of fear I keep seeing in such debates, where attention has been focused from Wikipedia Review or Greg Kohs' latest website. If we let ourselves be driven by those who use malicious tactics to bully people off Wikimedia projects, then I guess we should just hand them the keys and find something more interesting and fun to spend our time on. Sorry --Fæ (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an rebuttal to Fæ's statement above, I recommend people go read the article on the new wikipediocracy.com site: "Why Jim Hawkins' Treatment Matters". This seems to me an excellent presentation of the issue, and shows the importance of sites which critique Wikipedia (though I certainly grant there's much ranting in some areas, but welcome to the internet). Excerpt: "His principal complaint is that largely anonymous people are using one of the most highly-trafficked websites on the internet to aggregate as much information as they can about him, both the true and the dubiously so ... Hawkins' discomfort stems from the fact that patrolling his own biography for falsehoods or defamation would be practically a full time job. ... The fact that a bunch of folks going by internet handles ... get to determine the contents of the most prominent review of his life and work, with him having very little say in the matter, creeps him out." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Hawkins' principal complaint has actually been articulated. It's nice to know that someone has had a go at imagining what it might be, though. FormerIP (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have we got this right? - you're not sure what the complaint is but you have an opinion on the issue nevertheless, which ought to be counted. Super! In actual fact the issue was outlined at the start of all of this a couple of weeks or so ago, the blog post is a fair representation of the views expressed then. John lilburne (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Royal "we"?
The blog post probably is a fair representation of views expressed by editors, I'll grant. But, unless you can put me straight, we do not have an explanation from Hawkins as to why he doesn't want a WP article or what he thinks is wrong with the one he has. I think that makes it unsurprising that he is having a hard time getting what he wants. FormerIP (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To rebut Fae's weaksauce well-poisoning attempt, the Wikipedia Review is for all intents and purposes dead and Kohs.com there is a gladhappy bunch of milquetoast yes-men that I have little interest in interacting with, other than occasional barb or ridicule. I called out 11 piss-poor votes that rest more on spiting a living person rather than engage in the actual merits of notability. All on my own initiative, no off-wiki coaching or coordination. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is disgraceful when someone attacks wikipedians they don't like and attempts to put others off expressing an opinion. What's more disgraceful is when someone who does exactly this is so lacking in self-awareness that they, less than one hour later, complain about others doing so. Unless... unless you're trying for some "Gigantic Hypocrite of the Year" award or something. I mean, I could totally get behind you on that one and ride your candidacy to the finishing post.101.118.46.102 (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting IP address you are writing from, if I lived there I'd probably be out and about rather than looking at my screen. I have already been awarded with DICK of the year, so you are behind the curve with that suggestion. Unless you are a banned user, you should try logging in to your account if you want your opinion to make a difference. --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fae, what you attempted to do is write off my argument by linking it to the Kohsocracy where they are discussing it as well. But as I have just demonstrated, I am not a part of that clique. Yes, DRV is to have opinions on the AfD closure, and to get this overturned one thing that IMO helps to to point out the near-dozen awful arguments. If those named feel singled out, then that's kinda too bad. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not for a borderline BLP subject who has requested deletion; see WP:BIODELETE, which is policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are only reading the first line of BIODELETE, it would seem, omitting this: " Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." So, please do elucidate in what way this article is (a) poorly sourced; (b) of an unknown, non-public figure; or (c) has no editor opposing the deletion... Carrite (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. SlimVirgin is correct, those two sentences are clearly designed to stand alone and one does not affect the other.. Youreallycan 18:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing admin clearly weighed the arguments and came, imo, to the correct conclusion. Resolute 22:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close is well reasoned and policy based. AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete. as opined by others - there is no clear policy driven consensus to keep in the AFD discussion, that leaves us with a no consensus closure which has historically been a default to delete outcome in articles about people with limited notability when there has been a request from the subject for deletion. Youreallycan 23:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete - in Wikipedia formal terms, per User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayen466 and User:Youreallycan. While the closer acted in good faith as he interpreted policy, I believe he was simply mistaken in his estimate due to errors in weighing each side's arguments. Moreover, the behavior at the article immediately post-close is a reasonable basis for reconsideration of various factors, as proof of a problem that was not adequately taken into account in the AfD. Informally - this is another round of madness, that causes people to want nothing to do with being in Wikipedia. Anyone wondering why Jim Hawkins feels as he does, just try reading this page with the perspective of someone who is even merely dubious about Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seth is quite right that WP would be more popular among potential subjects if we let them force us to have a choice between an article they accept, or no article at all. It would, however, be useless as an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a straw man. Here we are talking about a specific article, from a small subset of biographies, those that are marginally notable, no clear consensus to keep, and where the subject desires deletion. Claiming that the encyclopedia would become useless is fallacious. Kevin (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete and Salt...No offense to Mr. Hawkins, but his notablity is extremely marginal...I can't see how NOT having the article will lessen the comprehensiveness of this website.--MONGO 03:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Any policy which takes into account the subject's wishes on anything should be eliminated with extreme prejudice as violating the encyclopedia's neutrality. To repeat what I've said elsewhere, there is no assurance that any editor claiming to be any individual is, in fact, that individual. Even if there was such assurance, the "rules" on notability neither need nor benefit from input from the subject. If we stick to high-quality secondary sources, then the subject will only be featured in Wikipedia to the extent that he or she is already featured elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be your opinion, but it does not reflect current policy, and carries no weight here. Also, there's really no doubt that the individual who contacted OTRS is the article subject. To answer your last bit, that is a huge if. The fact is that we don't use (exclusively) high quality sources. And again, this hypothetical assertion bears no weight on this debate. Kevin (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's based on the pillars, moreso than all of the arguments that the subject's wishes should be taken into account, and thus should be weighed appropriately by the closing administrator. Remember BLP is not a pillar, it's a limited set of quite important exceptions to the normal Wikipedia processes in an attempt to avoid harm to real people. Since there has been no credible assertion of harm raised, the arguments along the BLP lines are erroneous at best. When there is no harm being done, attempting to apply BLP to the topic is inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, we should never believe the subject's statement that this is causing him harm because, well, he's not a Wikipedian is he? Assuming good faith only goes so far for you I guess. Kevin (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I work in OTRS. I've heard from all sorts of people about all sorts of issues with their BLPs. This doesn't tip the scale compared to complaints I've handled there. There's two parts to a claim of harm: 1) the subject says it's causing distress, and 2) that statement is objectively reasonable. In many cases, we evaluate BLP statements on 2) alone, without needing a request, which is fine by me. In this case, there is no objective reasonableness for the claim of harm, since the subject is a participant in the public sphere, and there's nothing bad written about him. Look at what Jimbo has to say below, for a more detailed analysis of the "harm" bit. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your opinions on what we should do with the subject's wishes, perhaps OTRS is not a good fit for you? Anyway, this discussion is now well diverged from the DRV going on here. Kevin (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jclemens, you say, "If we stick to high-quality secondary sources". For goodness' sake, have you looked at the sources in this article? There are only eleven, after seven years, and over half of them are primary sources; the others are regional. We could write another 3 million biographies with sourcing like that. --JN466 10:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And if none of them contain contested or defamatory statements, what is the problem with 3 million more biographies? I am that notable, but have no particular desire for an article, and generally conduct myself as a low profile individual, something Mr. Hawkins does not. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a maintenance problem. Under the present system, Wikipedia doesn't have enough BLP watchers (or OTRS volunteers, for that matter) to effectively maintain the present number of biographies. And according to GNG, Hawkins is barely notable. --JN466 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I personally think it was a close call between NC and keep. Either was a reasonable reading, though I think keep was a better read of the discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and delete and salt (for now). The closer mentions lack of clear consensus on the question of notability, in the context of WP:GNG, and on the question of "unknown, non-public figure", for the purposes of WP:BIODELETE. But consensus is not a vote. Strength of argument counts. The argument in support of notability was extremely weak. One significant mention in a national paper and a smattering of mentions by his employer does not make this subject (yet) noteworthy, by any reading of our policies or guidelines. The closer erred in ignoring the extreme poverty of the arguments for notability and the strength of arguments against, and instead seems to have relied on a head count for "lack of consensus." The lack of consensus on the question of "unknown, non-public figure" is more obvious, but very little of the lengthy discussion was devoted to that question. Demonstrated absence of notability mandates deletion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Even if this was a "no consensus" closure, that means there is no consensus to delete the article, and the default there is keep. Notability comes from this person's past position of being a presenter of a national radio show and the winning of a major award. His current position as a presenter of a local radio show has nothing to do with his notability. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you mean the Sony Radio Academy Award. Last time I looked, it only lists 2010 winners and two of those names are red. Maybe we should all spend time editing that article and catching up with all the red names a full list would produce. Better still, list his name there and delete the article. Work through his page view statistics month by month and see how non-notable he is. There are months without any hits at all. There are a few sudden spikes in number of hits but we all know those are generated by WP antics, not by public awareness of interest. McOoee (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
McOoee, I could say WP:SOFIXIT to that comment. Number of page view hits is not an indication of notability. I've written quite a few GAs, and many of them only get a few hits a day. That doesn't mean that the article is covering a non-notable topic though. As for redlinks, they don't count for anything either. Look at all the redlinks in the various lists of shipwrecks, particularly those covering WWII. Almost all of those ships are capable of sustaining full articles and will meet GNG. Notability in this case was acquired by presenting a BBC Radio 4 show, added to by the winning of the Sony Award. DRV is not AFD round 2. It is an examination of whether the closing editor got it right or made a fundamental error of judgement. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is NOT a venue for AfD part II, which is what most of the "Overturn and delete" comments tend toward. The close was well reasoned, and while I saw the whole AfD as closer to no consensus than anything, I would not overturn a decision based on semantics (keep and no consensus, same outcome), nor can I see any "overturn" votes above that do more than state their AfD positions over again rather than cite any reason why the closure was wrong. ClayClayClay 05:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Clay, the key point here is that "keep" and "no consensus" are not the same when it comes to borderline BLPs. WP:BIODELETE gives the admin the option of deleting after a no-consensus AfD, if the subject has requested deletion. The closing admin did not avail himself of that option, because he interpreted the discussion as "keep," and not as "no consensus." That is where the procedural error lay, in my view, because it's hard to interpret the AfD conclusion as anything other than "no consensus." SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closer made reference to the question of being a public figure which is actually at the heart of biodelete - not marginal notablility. A public figure can be non-notable (ie some Major of some town without RS coverage) alternatively we can have a non-public figure being notable. The closer argued public figure - no biodelete. As a result a non-consensus discussion cannot lead to an automatic delete. Agathoclea (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Delete As stated above, this person is simply not notable enough. In any jurisdiction, a local radio personality with a limited audience would not be considered for inclusion. We cannot prove that this person has a right to an article. I cannot see him satisfying our policy on personalities, presenters or celebrities and therefore his article must be deleted. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse For the most part those arguing keep made much better points than those arguing against. There weren't simply 11 more in number arguing that position.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It doesn't matter how loudly you scream BLP, you also have to actually back it up with some reasoning. Nice try at doing an end-run around an AfD, though, points for creativity there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no screaming BLP and there is no attempted;run around of the AFD, there is some good faith interptetation that there was no clear consensus in the AFD discussion and that the correct close according to policy should have been, no consensus - those are the stated reasons for this deletion review, your comments don't addreess them and as such areunlikely to be considered by the closer.Youreallycan 08:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. As is well known, I take a pretty hard line on BLPs. First, some principles. Unlike some in this discussion, I think it is clear that taking into account the wishes of a marginal BLP subject is valid - not as an absolute trump card, of course, but as one of many factors to consider. I also think that a history of vandalism or trouble is a valid thing to take into account - if we have proven that we can't properly maintain a biography, that's a valid reason to delete. Having said all that, my overall judgment about this case is that the current article is good. I've gone through it myself, line by line, and checked all the references. While I strongly agree that unless and until there is a reliable source for his date of birth, it should be excluded. I also think it a bit extreme for us to view this as 'stalkerish' since the subject has spoken openly about his birthday on the radio and twitter. Similarly, the dustup about his county of residence - he is quoted as saying it publicly in a reliable source. The problem with both of those things is not the content itself, but that the subject is extremely annoyed with Pigsonthewing, and I already asked with kindness for Pigsonthewing to steer clear of the article. The mind boggles at the poor judgment of him getting involved anyway. Similarly, Malleus wrote rude comments in the deletion debate to the point that I felt it was necessary to courtesy blank it. Both of them should at a minimum be topic banned for being annoying to the subject. There is no benefit to the encyclopedia from such behavior. Currently the article is in good shape, semi-protected (actually, full protected at the moment due to the edit war), and the subject is sufficiently notable for a biography. With a handful of topic bans, we'll be in good shape.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Topic bans for PotW (and now Malleus) are being discussed here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Per WP:DOB policy, Hawkins' date of birth should be excluded even if there is a reliable source for it. --JN466 10:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I'd be interested to know the policy basis for topic baning someone because the subject of an article says they are "annoyed"; I'd imagine that would apply to a considerable number of editors. I find your stance here extremely annoying; will you be banned from making posts relating to me? I'd also note that Hawkins (or thsoe purpiorting to be him from anonymous IPs; assume to be him for the purpose of this comment) is annoyed by almost anyone who has edited the article; and, elsewhere, by you. Will you all be topic banned? Your claims that my edits on this subject have "no benefit" is bogus. If you feel that your requested favours have the weight of an instruction, please be clearer when making them. Please feel free to point out any of my recent edits which are against policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy, I'm not certain (because of the indenting and bullet points) whether the "you" in your comment above is me or Jimbo. If it's me, I'm not going to reply here as I don't think it's a matter for DRV. If you'd like a response on your talk page, let me know (though I suspect our positions are sufficiently far apart that any reply won't satisfy you!) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was replying to Jimbo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a matter of principle, personal feelings should always trump marginal notability in BLPs. The dynamics of reporting news are such that they create news and impact on people's lives heavily, careers too. It is not up to us to decide whether or not the impact is bad enough. Supposing somebody asks for your seat on the bus on the grounds that he is feeling ill; if you ask for proof and he vomits on you, you are getting what you asked for. This is not supposed to be a news service and we are not supposed to be playing God with people's lives. McOoee (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closing admin has interpreted the policy based arguments as presented. The overturn voters here are not introducing anything new not in the earlier delete debate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closing admin summarized policy and arguments well, paying close attention to the privacy concerns of the living individual, and setting a way forward (that may or may not include blocks/topic bans for individuals who continue to contravene). One of the best closes ever on Wikipedia. Supposed off-wiki contact has nothing to do with the article as it stands, and is a red-herring when raised here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for the many reasons stated, above, and it appears that the the positions to overturn are based in IDHT, especially with regard to the reliable sources that show the subject to be a "public figure." Such arguments, thus, contravene the policy. The closing admin did an excellent job, despite personal wishes. He should be commended. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closing admin appeared to be |reading BIODEL very narrowly, claiming that he wanted to delete but could not because our policy only allows the deletion of biographies of non-public figures but not the deletion of biographies of marginally notable people. I was under the impression that the policy is about deleting biographies of marginally notable people. In fact, the definition of "non-public figures" links to WP:NPF, which refers to people who are relatively unknown but notable enough for an entry. This means the same thing, to me, as "marginally notable people". I would overturn the decision, thus deleting the article, on the grounds that the closing admin misread the policy as not allowing deletion when it does. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can have highly notable people (in the Wikipedia sense: highly exceeding WP:N's sourcing requirements--a recluse writer would count) who aren't public. And you can even have public figures that aren't notable in the Wikipedia sense (if there is no coverage in reliable sources) though that is probably less common. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you need to have a concept of "public in the Wikipedia sense" as well, and someone can be public without being public in the Wikipedia sense.
I think it's fairly obvious that given the reference to NPF, the intent of the policy is that "non-public figure" includes people who are notable in the Wikipedia sense. If the policy allows the deletion of biographies of non-public figures, and it defines "non-public figure" to include the marginally notable, then it allows the deletion of biographies that are marginally notable. The closing admin made a mistake when he believed that the policy only allows the deletion of one and not the other. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The subject apparently isa public figure, and further developments have shown he intends to be as much of a public figure as he can: nobody chooses his profession who hopes to be altogether private. As So the purpose of bring the appeal appears to be to change our policy on NPOV and BIODEL. Biodel does not state as alleged above repeatedly, that if a BLP AfD is evenly balanced, we close delete. It says, in fact "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete" It only applies to people who are both relatively unknown and are non-public figures, and it remains optional. The AfD closer can choose in that narrow range of instances to close as delete. But the instance here was not one of them. Letting bio subjects delete their articles if they do not like them destroys NPOV: it makes all our articles on mildly notable people subject to their endorsement. We permit it none the less for private figures, in order to avoid undue notice and give whatever protection to desires for privacy is still possible in the current era. But only private people have that need--a public figure who wants his privacy respected is not being logical; there are many possible reasons, none of them adequate. I'm not sure which one applies--so I'll pick the least unacceptable, the understandable annoyance at having to fight for the removal of the d.o.b. to which he was rightfully entitled. So I don't blame him exactly, but I do blame his supporters here, for trying to destroy one of the foundations of Wikipedia--at his expense, for nothing could be worse for privacy than this multi-venue continuing discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The article subject is featured in multiple, independent, published instances of coverage in so-called reliable sources. What we have here is Chapter 7,349 in a 50,000 part saga in which a conservative minority favoring extreme restriction upon BLPs (in the form of effective veto rights by BLP subjects) rails against longstanding guidelines and consensus. This is cut-and-dried in terms of notability; what is at issue is whether a subject has final say over content. The minority feels they do; the consensus-backed majority feels they do not. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite, it has been established policy (see WP:BIODELETE) and best practice since 2008 that a no-consensus AfD can be closed delete if a borderline-notable BLP subject requests it. This has nothing to do with a "conservative minority," but with a majority effort over many years to improve the situation on Wikipedia for BLP subjects. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
can be but not must be. The close was not incorrect or unreasonable per deletion policy. You prefer a different close, but that preference does not make the close incorrect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about "can be," but the point is that the closing admin interpreted the outcome as "keep," rather than as "no consensus," though it seems clear to anyone who has watched AfD over the years that there wasn't a consensus one way or the other. Then he said that, because he had interpreted it that way, he was not allowed to avail himself of the BIODELETE option, though wished he could. That's what the procedural issue is, and DRV is supposed to be about procedure, not a rerun of the AfD. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But he said he considered the strength of the arguments, not just the numbers. A close entirely within admin discretion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those of us who are not administrators HAVE to replay this from the top since in the never-ending, multiple years-and-running campaign to bend over backwards to accommodate this subject the deletion debate has been scrubbed. This is at root a philosophical question: Do biography subjects have the right to control content at Wikipedia? This is a yes-or-no proposition and the majority is clear on the matter. All else flows from that, with the primary driving force in the controversy the minority's unwillingness to accept consensus on the issue. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the inapplicability of BIODELETE here, which seems obvious, I will again quote line two: " Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." This article is clearly outside of that description on all three grounds mentioned. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've posted this here three times and the answer is the same each time: WP:BIODELETE contains *two* situations where articles may be deleted. You quoted one of them. The one we are concerned with is the other one, which is obviously not the same thing; for one thing, it only requires no consensus, not "no editor opposing the deletion". Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Jim Hawkins is the sort of person I would travel around the world to have a cup of tea with. I've done it once or twice. He gave me a BBC Radio Shropshire teddy bear who has been my travelling companion since 2006. I created his article here as an act of love, scraping together what sparse facts I found via Google. In all the years since then, there's not a lot that has been added beyond what is obvious or easily found, though I must say I do like the coconut-shy reference. He is a good man, well-regarded by his listeners. He relates to his community well and I had no idea that anybody would think to make his life miserable by harassing him through a Wikipedia article. While the article itself is now unobjectionable, I am seriously concerned about comments Jim has made recently about the effect this saga has had on his health, his job and his well-being. To put it bluntly, I'm worried for him. I accept that editors have various points of view over what we should and should not include and that if information such as his birthday or address is available somewhere on line then it has a place in a biographical article. But the net effect is that it is putting a lot of stress on Jim, not least because he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. I'm not sure anybody does really, but it works. Would it kill us if we didn't have an article about Jim Hawkins? Because I'm worried about what happens if we keep it and keep making sometimes petty and ignorant comments about Jim. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pete that's all lovely, especially the cup of tea, but are you really suggesting that we overturn and delete based upon a sentimental journey down memory lane and all this evocative stuff about his health? If he's sick, he should see a doctor. This is Wikipedia, not a support group. All the best to both of you... Fylbecatulous talk 11:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen a clearer demonstration of the reason for not paying attention to the opinion of the subject than you have just given. How Wikipedia works is not mysterious: the collection of those interested in discussing the matter at issue decides. An individual may or may agree, but short of a total dictatorship, what could be simpler? You present here a novel example of the absurd lengths to which one can conceivably carry DONOHARM: "Delete the article on me, because if not I shall kill myself." We have been struggling for weeks to find some plausible reason for wanting the deletion and have not found any; in view of the overall discussion, had there been any, it would have been deleted. Nor do you present one, except that the subject has taken it into his head that, although there is nothing he objects to there, he nonetheless objects to it. that's the way to make a vanity site, not an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Human decency and the application of Wikipedia policy are thus shown to have little in common. I suggest you return to the annual baby seal harvest. *struck as unbecoming in discourse with a librarian* →StaniStani  04:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, have you seen the comments by Skyring (Pete) and ErrantX at WP:AN on the history of this BLP? There may not be a problem in the article now, but from the subject's perspective such problems as there have been could reappear any day, because our system for writing BLPs has not changed. I would suggest you investigate the article's history, including any revdeleted or oversighted talk pages and article content. If, after reviewing that, you tell me that there was never anything in this article that a reasonable person would be upset about, I shall believe you. However, I very much doubt that this will be the outcome of such an investigation. --JN466 13:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jayen, I don't have oversight. If there were real matter, surely someone who does, would have said "there is such material in the history that even if oversighted, it makes an article unfair." BLP problems can appear in any article any day. Jimmy, who does have oversight, seems to say clearly that this is not the case; he is also of the opinion that in a case where we cannot keep the article free of this, that's justification for deleting the article. I don't have to say if I disagree with him there, because we always have such a method, full protection. Perhaps you'll rely on him, instead of me; it would be safer to do so, as he has stricter views than I on BLP--and perhaps I would too in his position. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I'd considered closing the discussion not long before it was closed here, and while I might have closed it somewhat differently, I don't see anything out of line here. In my view, the AfD wasn't treated as a pure vote, analysis was done of the appropriate policy/guideline arguments, and I don't see any sign that the closer misunderstood the arguments or evidence provided. Nor do I see that closer's readings of policy out of line with the range of mainstream readings of those policies. As this is not AfD-part-2, my argument ends there, I must endorse. To the extent that additional effort is necessary to protect the article subject from unwarranted harm, I suggest we move ahead and examine the other tools in our toolbox. --joe deckertalk to me 22:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot Will be decided at a different level than this one in any case. As for making charges about off-Wiki venues - that is pretty much useless as an argument of any sort here - the only arguemnts here are propriety of the close, and too much of what is written above is posturing unrelated to that sole issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Quite aside from all the cogent comments above, I feel quite strongly that someone who voluntarily chooses to place himself in the public eye has not a leg to stand on when it comes to public notice, and if the subject is "ill" that people are writing about him, nothing prevents him from entering a more private life where that will not take place. That being said, I plan on using this DRV as evidence the next time someone gets huffy with me over my assertion that XfD closers who rule for policy over headcount do so at their peril. Ravenswing 03:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment on notability: Hawkins writes a monthly column in, and was recently featured on the cover of, a nationally-available magazine; details came to light after the recent AfD, and are currently awaiting an admin edit to the protected article; see its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I !voted Keep at the AfD and see no reason to change my view. I agree this is not a rerun of AfD so won't rehearse those arguments. My "Endorse" here is because I agree with the closer that although he is a relatively minor figure, he is not sufficiently borderline for WP:BIODELETE to apply. He is within his rights to ask for the article to be deleted, and we're within ours to decline. I have offered, publicly and privately, to work with him to remove any errors if appropriate (as has Jimbo), but he has declined to say what these are. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Query: I see a lot of people referring to WP:BIODELETE, and arguing about whether or not Hawkins falls under the requirements there. But why is no one noting that the policy itself very explicitly says "may be closed as delete"? That is, some people seem to be saying or implying that while a normal article "no consensus" defaults to "keep", a minorly-notable BLP who has requested deletion defaults to "delete". That's not what the policy says. In effect, it gives the admin discretion about whether or not to account for the BLP subjects wishes--it does not compel them to do so simply because there is no consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the closer could have closed as no consensus and then opened a discussion - it appears to me that the closer should not have closed at all as they held and vocalized such strong opinions about the article in the closing comments - if the closer held such strong opinions they should have vote commented in the discussion delete as they vocalized -I fail to understand why they felt not to vote comment and close and comment in opposition to their own close in the close - strange indeed. - the closer, asked in the close, "Is there consensus here to delete this BLP? , yet within policy consensus was not needed to delete it, only no consensus in the discussion was required. Youreallycan 14:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, the closing admin wanted to delete it, but felt that the policy did not allow him to (and I pointed out that he misread the policy). If it just gives the admin discretion, then presumably he'd delete it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But he perceived that there was consensus to keep it. He respected the community's view. As I've said, this was honorable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closer is just doing their job, which is to interpret consensus in accord with policy, coming in from an uninvolved position. That they indicated their own personal sentiments is neither here nor there; certainly the histrionics of the minority in search of some sort of IAR outcome here are no justification for a unilateral reversal. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Though he notes the outcome as keep, this is really a no consensus close where the closer did not believe it appropriate to delete under BIODELETE or otherwise, as he had the discretion to do. If he'd wanted to delete it, he would have, we've all seen it before. After the silliness i witnessed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_13#Template:Rescue where about 60% to delete was considered a "consensus" to delete, I'm pleasantly surprised to see folks now arguing that roughly the same numbers in favor of keeping is not actually a "keep" but at best no consensus (albeit to allow application of BIODELETE). No consensus is no consensus. The fact that Hawkins' biography was vandalized and not monitored better is the actual problem.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close – the closer seems to have interpreted the arguments admirably. Oculi (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - I did not participate in the AfD and I do not know whether the subject is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure." But there certainly was not a consensus that he is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure", and therefore WP:BIODEL does not apply. That looks like a bad policy to me anyway, as I do not think any notable person should have veto power over their own article, and this person is at least notable enough for an article. For now, that is the policy, but not one that applies here. At the same time, those few editors who seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the subject should be banned from editing the article. Neutron (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: When somebody of marginal notability asks for a BLP to be deleted, it should be deleted automatically (not many LPs fit that description). A nasty kind of cultural ethic seems to be developing at WP, according to which the 'encyclopaedia' is an agent for social change, which includes the the view "no pain no gain" (so long as others feel the pain). And there are too many others who take their encyclopaedic responsibilities far too seriously, arguing that the LP is not suffering enough for us to waive those responsibilities. We should all have a look at the state of the majority of WP articles before asking someone else to suffer for our responsibilities. Start fixing all those other articles before forcing this rudimentary biography on an unwilling LP. Then maybe WP will deserve to be taken seriously. McOoee (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn close as keep and re-close as no consensus. Whether that results in keeping or deleting the article is still not entirely clear. But what is clear is that this is an issue that is dividing the community and a proper, centralised, discussion of the general principles around BIODELETE needs to be had. There are valid arguments on both sides, but a calm discussion, away from the drama, is needed (for example, several people have pointed to similar cases to this one that were closed with minimal drama and with the articles being deleted). What is needed is a way to handle cases like this without the attendant drama, if that is possible. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can think of not way of deciding these things worse than our current system. Whether we keep or delete this article, more effort will have gone into it than the article is worth, and more trouble will have been made for him and more harm will have been done than if he had left it alone. What I'm going to suggest is that the option to take the subject's preference into account be removed entirely forall cases, and we simply decide on the basis of notability and DO NO HARM. Do no harm, that is , to the interests of fairness, to the reasonable interests of a person,to the providing of encyclopedic information,and to keeping trivial tabloid-cruft and promotionalism both out of the encyclopedia. The present system favors the bold promotionalist, who can exploit it to force an article to his liking. It harms the modest unfortunate, who has to resort to extremely public and unnecessary discussions of whether his private life should be publicized here. It harms the people it should be helping, and helps those who a NPOV reference source has no business in assisting. Where there are true privacy issues, they cannot be discussed in public--and they will not, because the sensible people at otrs and elsewhere will find some quiet way of doing what is proper. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; this deciding whose feelings we should respect and whose we should ignore is tortuous. I prefer Tarc's solution (on Jimbo's talk page), though. He suggests deleting any BLP when the verified subject requests it. That way we do no harm at all. The project would lose a few biographies, but they can be restored once the subject has died. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Common decency on a borderline-notable BLP.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as within the closer's discretion, although I would have closed it no consensus. I will state that as a practical matter, it would be difficult to sustain a BIODELETE nc deletion where the discussion leans towards keeping; I think it would be more profitable to have the larger discussion others have mentioned about whether our ad hoc process serves us well in these cases. None of which, of course, is really proper for DRV, hence my !vote here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Johnny Sandelson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was deleted by HJ Mitchell. I've left a message, without response, to see if we can resolve the deletion. The referenced content should be reviewed to see if the article can be reinstated, or assess whether the content can be used elsewhere. Vjdigital (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another Bell Pottinger employee seeking to get promotional content restored. There is no bar on recreation by someone without a COI so why don't we leave it at that. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 14:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Restore Invalid G11 speedy. The criterion for G11 is "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. " . This is promotional in intent, but the content is not entirely promotional, and it would not have to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic . We have no rule that says Paid articles may be speedily deleted. The admin acted as if we did, and the matter really should go to arb com, because he surely must know that, and a deletion like this is attempting to pre-empt the current discussions of paid editing. If anyone thinks the result is too promotional, they are free to rewrite it, even to the extent of removing all the content and starting over. The editor was blocked as a sock puppet on 6 December 2011, as was right, but the article was written before the block. The puppetmaster was blocked on 8 Dec 2011. Perhaps we should have a rule that anyone detected in sockpuppetry will have all their previous contributions deleted, but we do not have one nor do I think there would be consensus for it, as there would be too much collateral damage (from initially good editors who later turned to socking). We do not wield Balefire, which erases all earlier traces of the target from our universe. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The G11 deletion was made in good faith as the page is exclusively promotional. The article is peppered with weasel words, puffery and superlatives, with an apparent attempt to maximize SEO keyword density. Claims regarding investment returns are misleading and the article would indeed have to be entirely rewritten. No one is preventing the recreation of a neutral version of this article. Gobōnobo + c 19:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little puzzled. In the edit right before the speedy, you yourself did a pretty good first pass at routine editing to remove superlatives and over-links. You yourself have shown it to be fixable--fixable in the way it should be, by non-involved editors. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That I attempted to address some of the bias in the article in no way demonstrates that the article is fixable. All of the content on this article was added by three Bell Pottinger sockpuppets and it took a huge amount of time and energy trying to undo the damage these accounts unleashed on the Wiki, as evidenced at Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations. Now another Bell Pottinger employee has come forward to "resolve the deletion." This from a company that managed to bury undesirable information deeper than the first 10 pages of a Google search. So, aside from the peacock terms and self-promotion, we have to check the references used to ensure that they're not BP-created puff pieces. And we're supposed to restore that mess and create more work for ourselves? Color me a little puzzled too. Gobōnobo + c 23:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how could it have been a proper deletion if it were done after the deletion had already been declined by someone else? That's one of the basic rules for operating at CSD, along with not removing tags from one's own article. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing that. Can you show me where the deletion was declined? Gobōnobo + c 23:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse more or less per Gobonobo. The article is fundamentally a PR construct, and while it might be possible to write a valid article using some of the info and sources in the original, that original is unsalvageable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore No valid deletion criterion applied; the post hoc justifications above are simply not compelling. Send to AfD and give the community a voice, rather than administrators deciding to invent new rules to eliminate content unilaterally because the contributors have a conflict of interest. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and list at AfD as desired. Overly promotional, but not entirely so. There are reasonable sources as well as a basic (if biased) starting point for the text. Hopefully going through the AfD process will help with that. Hobit (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and run through AfD. This is not speedy deletion material; whether it is or is not worthy of inclusion is a matter for debate. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Per Gobonobo, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz it's fundamentally a PR article and the current article is pretty much unsalvageable for creating an encyclopaedic article. No objection to a new encyclopaedic article being written separately but I suspect it would be likely to end up at AfD fairly sharpish even if it was. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_April_2&oldid=1142499422"