802:. The fact that we have been deleting articles for unknown individuals at least partly at the request of the subject for a while rather undermines this. No, I don't have a list of articles that have been deleted this way, just as there aren't any lists of articles that have been deleted for any other reason, but searching AfDs for related keywords brings up plenty of examples of places it has been considered. We aren't obliged to grant requests like these. It's entirely at the discretion of the editors involved and there aren't any fixed criteria for it, so you are perfectly entitled to disagree with me, but I don't think we should have an article about this person in this situation. He's sufficiently low profile to be entitled to his privacy.
724:
him out to have had essentially the same career as the version which formerly existed in mainspace. He was a journalist for the BBC for a long time, they sent him to cover current events, he worked for
Mohamed Al Fayed, he appeared on a comedy panel show and gave a lecture. None of that makes you a "high profile person". Granted, he passes the GNG, but I don't see how that enters into this. By writing articles about him we are violating his privacy and causing harm to him, and that outweighs the very small loss we suffer by not having an article on him.
847:, undelete, merge, restore to mainspace. I think we are mature and professional enough to handle the slippery slope fallacy. Non-public persons subjected to distress by inaccurate or biased coverage is a good reason to delete something, even if there are sources. Here, we do not have a non-public person, I see no good reason for him or anyone to be concerned by biased coverage, and it is all out there to read, just search for
155:, leaving it in draft space now would cause less harm than restoring it in mainspace. And if we ended up rejecting that, then it would be easy enough to move into mainspace later. What I didn't realize is that when I ran the XfD tool, the discussion it generated would get listed under MfD. I was expecting it to be listed under AfD. So, yes, an accident that it's in MfD. But, no, not an accident that it's still a draft
828:. Sources provided would indicate that the GNG is met (e.g. being the BBC Royal Correspondent, a position that generally confers notability in a public manner). An attempt should be made to contact Mr. Cole to inquire as to what inaccuracies there are in the article, but if that is a dead end, or a search of the available RS do not indicate any reason to question the article content, it should be
415:, not sure why this was relisted given the comments at the DRV. Confused further why it's here at MFD and not AFD which is where the original deletion discussion took place. Regardless: this is a well sourced article about a notable subject, and there is no reason whatsoever to delete a BLP article because the subject of the article asks. That's a slippery slope I strongly urge we NOT go down... —
781:"– two problems: 1) logical fallacy, just because something has been done before doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, and 2) this is my first encounter with an article being deleted like this (due to the subjects request), care to elaborate on just how many articles have met their end this way? Is there a list somewhere? —
492:. I note from the talkpage that this article has been rated as "low importance" by the relevant wikiprojects. I think that is a correct assessment. The coverage of Knowledge is not left with a striking gap if this article continues not to exist. Whilst I accept that the notability of this person is sufficient that Knowledge
723:
the subject asked us to remove our article on him because the available sources contained inaccuracies and as a fairly unknown figure he wanted privacy. We decided to comply with that request, as we're allowed to do. There isn't anything here which justifies altering that decision - the article makes
509:
applies. Having articles about living people can have a real and significant impact on those people; it can cause harm in ways we may not readily appreciate. It would therefore be callous for us to disregard a BLP subject's request for privacy when there is no appreciable damage to the project if we
161:
I was also asked on my talk page to clarify what should happen in the event of various scenarios this discussion might evolve towards. It's really difficult to predict the future, so I'll just leave things with the above clarification and trust that whoever comes along and closes this will exercise
761:
That's not an appropriate comparison. Donald Trump is a very high profile public figure, this guy isn't. Having a few newspaper articles written about you doesn't make you a public figure. Policy does allow us to delete articles about non-public figures at the request of the subject and has for a
599:
is a shorter article, but from the BBC. And again is solely about the subject of this article. This isn't a "low-notability" individual in any way and his request for the deletion of the article is irrelevant given he is/was such a high-profile person. I honestly don't see how that can be in
743:
is offended by our article on him and requests that we delete it? On what grounds do we "violate his privacy", but not this individuals? If a subject is notable enough to warrant an article, that's all that is needed. It's unfortunate that the subject of this article felt deletion was the best
504:
shows, the article subject would strongly prefer that we not include an article about him in
Knowledge. I think this is an appropriate case to respect such a wish. I do not think being a royal correspondent for the BBC makes someone a public figure and would say that this person is relatively
277:
have done was create a draft of your proposed new version of the article and start a discussion proposing recreation. We'd have gotten here a lot faster if you'd done that, instead of just recreating it without regard to
744:
solution, but that doesn't change the fact that under policy here an article about him is completely appropriate. If someone doesn't want to be written about, the simple solution is to not do anything noteworthy. —
475:). Michael Cole was similarly omnipresent (in the UK) in earlier decades. (Michael Cole was not disputing his notability. He was protesting about unspecified inaccuracies and pleading a case for privacy.)
701:
501:
311:, which is part of the deletion policy, does not take a position on recreation for biographies. Regardless, it is a slippery slope to begin deleting articles because of complaints from their subjects. —
266:
117:
528:) are not deletion criteria. And while a royal correspondent, who appears on BBC national news on a regular basis, is a public figure, the subject passes GNG even without that part of his CV.
99:
95:
128:. I offer no opinion on the outcome. There was a long discussion at the DRV. Rather than trying to summarize it here, I'll just refer folks to the link above to get the background. --
87:
56:
says "where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." but in this case the consensus for deleting does not appear to be here.
832:. We should not delete articles of people even borderline notable because of their roles in which they were public figures over vague claims of inaccuracy without evidence.----
798:
I know that the fact that something has been done before doesn't make it the right thing to do in this situation. The reason I brought that up is your assertion that this is
594:
179:
524:
Project ratings (applied by one individual editor, not by consensus at a project; not that projects have a stronger voice than the sum of individuals involved, per
125:
91:
65:
848:
467:– per Locke Cole. It seems obscure to argue that the BBC Royal correspondent is not automatically notable when the incumbent is a household name (eg
213:
I can't parse what you're even saying. Can you explain this using more words? Also, did you not read the DRV discussion to get the history on this? —
151:
Yes, I was aware this was a draft, and made a conscious decision to leave it in draft space. My logic there was if we ended up accepting the
82:
74:
860:
812:
793:
772:
756:
734:
713:
692:
676:
647:
609:
582:
548:
519:
484:
459:
441:
401:
365:
341:
323:
291:
257:
225:
208:
191:
169:
135:
68:
672:
578:
544:
397:
253:
838:
591:
337:
17:
790:
753:
438:
424:
362:
320:
222:
262:
331:, which deals with deletion discussions where the subject has requested deletion, could be argued to cover this case. ----
61:
739:
Again, a slippery slope that the project should not even contemplate walking down. Where do we draw the line? What if
686:
draft, and when it’s ready, ‘’’restore to mainspace’’’. We are doing an AfD on a DRAFT? This is kind of ridiculous.
147:, I see there's some confusion about why this is at MfD vs. Afd. I'll reproduce part of my talk page comments here:
506:
346:
328:
879:
53:
40:
525:
57:
668:
574:
540:
393:
249:
618:
and moving the article into mainspace. Could everyone please try to clarify their !votes wrt that issue?
455:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.
875:
36:
786:
782:
749:
745:
633:
434:
430:
420:
416:
358:
354:
316:
312:
218:
214:
856:
709:
515:
287:
279:
270:
187:
152:
659:
629:
590:(Which is what I assume the keep !votes above were pushing for based on their comments). Folks,
565:
531:
384:
240:
166:
132:
833:
625:
468:
451:
332:
204:
180:
Knowledge:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Discussion_to_reverse_a_BLPDELETE_decision
350:
308:
304:
296:
273:
and this discussion is intended to test whether a consensus for recreation exists. What you
874:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
643:
605:
480:
199:
I fear that if a BLP is deleted, it is generally not likely to survive as a draft either.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
381:
article. Your assertion of what I "should" have done is utterly without basis or merit.
852:
705:
697:
687:
512:
284:
183:
614:
Folks, it's probably important that when !voting, you distinquish between keeping the
559:
300:
163:
129:
805:
765:
740:
727:
621:
200:
307:
covers) by an administrator, and thus did not follow the process outlined there.
597:
777:
It wasn't a comparison, it was a question: where do we draw the line? As for "
639:
601:
476:
472:
656:
resutlted in "overturned", the issue is moot. The artcle must be restored.
800:
a slippery slope that the project should not even contemplate walking down
593:
is a crazy-good source. 99% of our BLPs don't have anything like that.
496:
an article about him, I do not think that it is so great that
Knowledge
144:
868:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
702:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Cole_(public_relations)
502:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations)
450:, per Locke Cole and what I said in the previous discussion. --
267:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations)
118:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations)
237:
deleted, and that deletion was recently overturned at DRV.
54:
Knowledge:Deletion policy#Deletion of biographies and BLPs
107:
103:
299:
does not apply. The original article was deleted at
124:Listing here as a purely administrative action per
143:Clarification to my nomination statement. Per a
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
882:). No further edits should be made to this page.
353:, which again takes no position on recreation. —
596:is also a stellar source from what I can see.
303:, it was not summarily deleted (which is what
8:
652:Given that the DRV for the deletion of the
162:good judgement and do the right thing. --
126:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 14
233:article has never been deleted. It was
558:Clearly notable public figure, passes
377:article was deleted there. It was not
83:Draft:Michael Cole (public relations)
75:Draft:Michael Cole (public relations)
7:
269:. Recreation requires consensus per
48:The result of the discussion was:
588:Keep/allow restoration to mainspace
700:, we are dilberating on reversing
413:Speedy keep, move to article space
24:
18:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion
762:long time, this is nothing new.
845:Keep (reverse the previous AfD)
263:Michael Cole (public relations)
178:I advertised this at WP:BLPN,
1:
510:comply with their request.
427:07:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
52:and move to article space.
902:
861:00:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
813:20:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
794:17:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
773:06:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
757:23:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
735:14:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
714:04:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
693:17:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
677:14:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
648:14:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
610:12:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
583:12:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
549:12:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
520:11:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
490:Delete/disallow recreation
485:11:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
460:07:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
442:14:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
402:16:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
366:17:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
342:03:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
324:15:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
292:14:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
258:14:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
226:07:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
209:01:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
192:00:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
170:11:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
145:discussion on my talk page
136:14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
500:an article about him. As
69:07:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
871:Please do not modify it.
265:was deleted pursuant to
32:Please do not modify it.
505:unknown. Accordingly,
556:Keep in article space
779:this is nothing new
507:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
347:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
329:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
58:CambridgeBayWeather
518:
290:
526:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
511:
469:Nicholas Witchell
444:
429:Clarifying keep —
283:
120:
893:
873:
849:michael cole bbc
808:
768:
730:
690:
675:
666:
662:
637:
581:
572:
568:
547:
538:
534:
428:
400:
391:
387:
256:
247:
243:
115:
112:
111:
34:
901:
900:
896:
895:
894:
892:
891:
890:
886:
880:deletion review
869:
841:
806:
766:
728:
688:
664:
658:
657:
619:
570:
564:
563:
536:
530:
529:
389:
383:
382:
340:
245:
239:
238:
85:
81:
78:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
899:
897:
888:
885:
884:
864:
863:
842:
837:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
718:
717:
716:
698:User:Montanabw
681:
680:
679:
612:
585:
553:
552:
551:
487:
462:
445:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
336:
228:
194:
175:
174:
173:
172:
159:
158:
157:
122:
121:
116:Previous AfD:
113:
77:
72:
62:Uqaqtuq (talk)
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
898:
889:
883:
881:
877:
872:
866:
865:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
843:
840:
839:contributions
835:
831:
827:
824:
814:
811:
810:
809:
801:
797:
796:
795:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
775:
774:
771:
770:
769:
760:
759:
758:
755:
751:
747:
742:
738:
737:
736:
733:
732:
731:
722:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
696:
695:
694:
691:
685:
682:
678:
674:
670:
665:Pigsonthewing
661:
655:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
635:
631:
630:Pigsonthewing
627:
623:
617:
613:
611:
607:
603:
598:
595:
592:
589:
586:
584:
580:
576:
571:Pigsonthewing
567:
561:
557:
554:
550:
546:
542:
537:Pigsonthewing
533:
527:
523:
522:
521:
517:
514:
508:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
461:
457:
453:
449:
446:
443:
440:
436:
432:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
403:
399:
395:
390:Pigsonthewing
386:
380:
376:
373:
367:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
344:
343:
339:
338:contributions
334:
330:
327:
326:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
294:
293:
289:
286:
281:
276:
272:
268:
264:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
246:Pigsonthewing
242:
236:
232:
229:
227:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
198:
195:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
176:
171:
168:
165:
160:
156:
154:
149:
148:
146:
142:
141:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
131:
127:
119:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
887:
870:
867:
844:
834:Patar knight
829:
825:
804:
803:
799:
778:
764:
763:
741:Donald Trump
726:
725:
720:
683:
673:Andy's edits
669:Talk to Andy
660:Andy Mabbett
653:
626:Gerda Arendt
615:
587:
579:Andy's edits
575:Talk to Andy
566:Andy Mabbett
555:
545:Andy's edits
541:Talk to Andy
532:Andy Mabbett
497:
493:
489:
465:Keep/Restore
464:
452:Gerda Arendt
447:
412:
398:Andy's edits
394:Talk to Andy
385:Andy Mabbett
378:
374:
349:just quotes
333:Patar knight
280:WP:BLPDELETE
274:
271:WP:BLPDELETE
254:Andy's edits
250:Talk to Andy
241:Andy Mabbett
234:
230:
196:
153:WP:BLPDELETE
150:
123:
49:
47:
31:
28:
638:. Thanks,
562:by a mile.
783:Locke Cole
746:Locke Cole
634:Locke Cole
473:Jenny Bond
431:Locke Cole
417:Locke Cole
355:Locke Cole
313:Locke Cole
215:Locke Cole
66:Sunasuttuq
876:talk page
853:SmokeyJoe
706:SmokeyJoe
689:Montanabw
513:WJBscribe
498:must have
351:WP:BIODEL
309:WP:BIODEL
305:WP:BLPDEL
297:WP:BLPDEL
285:WJBscribe
184:SmokeyJoe
37:talk page
878:or in a
830:restored
600:debate.
494:can have
164:RoySmith
130:RoySmith
39:or in a
807:Hut 8.5
767:Hut 8.5
729:Hut 8.5
654:artcile
632:, and
622:Collect
201:Collect
96:history
721:Delete
560:WP:GNG
516:(talk)
301:WP:AFD
288:(talk)
275:should
235:speedy
197:Delete
167:(talk)
133:(talk)
851:. --
640:Hobit
616:draft
602:Hobit
477:Oculi
182:. --
104:watch
100:links
16:<
857:talk
826:Keep
710:talk
704:. --
684:Keep
644:talk
606:talk
481:talk
456:talk
448:Keep
379:this
231:This
205:talk
188:talk
108:logs
92:talk
88:edit
50:Keep
836:- /
667:);
573:);
539:);
392:);
335:- /
248:);
859:)
789:•
785:•
752:•
748:•
712:)
671:;
646:)
628:,
624:,
608:)
577:;
543:;
483:)
471:,
458:)
437:•
433:•
423:•
419:•
396:;
375:An
361:•
357:•
319:•
315:•
282:.
252:;
221:•
217:•
207:)
190:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
90:|
64:,
60:,
855:(
791:c
787:t
754:c
750:t
708:(
663:(
642:(
636::
620:@
604:(
569:(
535:(
479:(
454:(
439:c
435:t
425:c
421:t
388:(
363:c
359:t
321:c
317:t
244:(
223:c
219:t
203:(
186:(
110:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.