| Revision as of 23:29, 31 March 2012 editGeometry guy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users31,032 edits Compromise: discussion remains blanked, but provide show/hide for closing remarks← Previous edit |
Revision as of 00:12, 1 April 2012 edit undoTarc (talk | contribs)24,217 edits rv: No, blanked means "blanked" not "here's a 1-click endaround".Next edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|
===]=== |
|
===]=== |
|
⚫ |
''The result was '''keep'''. The actual discussion has been ] but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). <span style="color:red">'''No further edits should be made to this page.'''</span>'' __NOINDEX__<!-- inserted using Template:afd-privacy --></div> |
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
: ''This discussion has been ] but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
{{#if:Reading through the discussions, and given that I've been provided the links to confirm that the individual has requested deletion of the article, I've been able to identify a few key issues: |
|
|
*''Is the individual relatively unknown and a non-public figure?'' Although my personal viewpoint is that the individual is relatively unknown, I see no consensus in the discussions here that show editors agreeing that this individual is so, or that he is a non-public figure. While some argue that choosing a radio presenter's profession should not be an automatic reason to be considered a public figure, others argue that that exactly is the case, especially when one is a BBC presenter for whom being a public figure is a self-chosen part of the job. Therefore, I see no way in which one could apply ] here unless consensus emerges that the individual is a non-public figure. |
|
|
*''Is there consensus here to delete this BLP?'' Leave the fringe and emotive comments, the ''delete'' !voters bring out issues with ] sourcing, notability worthiness of the award won by the BLP, marginal notability of the individual himself, being humane about respecting an individual's request to not have one's biography (or attack/puffery/nonsense information) on the project, applying ] per se out here and creation of new deletion policies (which allow marginally notable people to have their BLPs deleted on request), The ''keep'' !voters bring forward some of the same issues with differing perspectives - that the BLP meets the notability criteria at ], the BLP is not an attack page (anymore), the DoB/content issue is one that should be handled otherwise (full protection as a start) but not through deletion, award(s) won by the BLP qualify the individual on ], and that notable personalities should not have the discretion to request deletion of their BLPs because they dislike it. |
|
|
:If it were just a numerial summary, then there are 40 odd keep !votes compared to 30 odd delete !votes. But then, it's not just about the numbers here. Although I personally completely agree with the delete !voters and am appalled that individuals who get harrassed due to their Misplaced Pages BLP are not able to get the same removed, there's strong policy support for the keep !votes here. Disappointing as it is, there is less or absent policy on our project that supports requests from borderline notable personalities to delete their biographies when the same may not contain attack or defamatory information. In this regard, I have to close this AfD as '''Keep'''. |
|
|
*''What is the way forward for this BLP subject?'' One way forward could be editors like SlimVirgin, Dweller, DGG, Youreallycan etc working towards creating an addition to BIODEL or to BLPDEL that confirms that marginally notable people, irrespective of whether their BLP is an attack page or not, may request successfully the removal of their BLP from our project. The second clearly is the Foundation immediately taking office action in case they feel that this case needs to be viewed with leniency. I'll personally prefer that as of immediately. |
|
|
:Again, my personal viewpoint due to various reasons would have been to delete this BLP, if not for anything else but for the massive pain this project ends up committing on some living people who really would wish otherwise. Irrespective of that, a '''keep''' is the decision here. Thanks and regards.] ] 10:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)|{{show |
|
|
|The result was ''keep''. |
|
|
| |
|
|
Reading through the discussions, and given that I've been provided the links to confirm that the individual has requested deletion of the article, I've been able to identify a few key issues: |
|
|
*''Is the individual relatively unknown and a non-public figure?'' Although my personal viewpoint is that the individual is relatively unknown, I see no consensus in the discussions here that show editors agreeing that this individual is so, or that he is a non-public figure. While some argue that choosing a radio presenter's profession should not be an automatic reason to be considered a public figure, others argue that that exactly is the case, especially when one is a BBC presenter for whom being a public figure is a self-chosen part of the job. Therefore, I see no way in which one could apply ] here unless consensus emerges that the individual is a non-public figure. |
|
|
*''Is there consensus here to delete this BLP?'' Leave the fringe and emotive comments, the ''delete'' !voters bring out issues with ] sourcing, notability worthiness of the award won by the BLP, marginal notability of the individual himself, being humane about respecting an individual's request to not have one's biography (or attack/puffery/nonsense information) on the project, applying ] per se out here and creation of new deletion policies (which allow marginally notable people to have their BLPs deleted on request), The ''keep'' !voters bring forward some of the same issues with differing perspectives - that the BLP meets the notability criteria at ], the BLP is not an attack page (anymore), the DoB/content issue is one that should be handled otherwise (full protection as a start) but not through deletion, award(s) won by the BLP qualify the individual on ], and that notable personalities should not have the discretion to request deletion of their BLPs because they dislike it. |
|
|
:If it were just a numerial summary, then there are 40 odd keep !votes compared to 30 odd delete !votes. But then, it's not just about the numbers here. Although I personally completely agree with the delete !voters and am appalled that individuals who get harrassed due to their Misplaced Pages BLP are not able to get the same removed, there's strong policy support for the keep !votes here. Disappointing as it is, there is less or absent policy on our project that supports requests from borderline notable personalities to delete their biographies when the same may not contain attack or defamatory information. In this regard, I have to close this AfD as '''Keep'''. |
|
|
*''What is the way forward for this BLP subject?'' One way forward could be editors like SlimVirgin, Dweller, DGG, Youreallycan etc working towards creating an addition to BIODEL or to BLPDEL that confirms that marginally notable people, irrespective of whether their BLP is an attack page or not, may request successfully the removal of their BLP from our project. The second clearly is the Foundation immediately taking office action in case they feel that this case needs to be viewed with leniency. I'll personally prefer that as of immediately. |
|
|
:Again, my personal viewpoint due to various reasons would have been to delete this BLP, if not for anything else but for the massive pain this project ends up committing on some living people who really would wish otherwise. Irrespective of that, a '''keep''' is the decision here. Thanks and regards.] ] 10:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC) }} |
|
|
|The result was '''keep'''.}} __NOINDEX__<!-- inserted using Template:afd-privacy --></div> |
|