Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hawkins: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
no consensus |
Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) courtesy blanking of old discussion |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <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 talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' |
|||
<!--Template:Afd top |
|||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|||
The result was '''no consensus''', defaulting to keep. [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|Can't sleep, clown will eat me]] 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Jim Hawkins]]=== |
|||
Article's subject requests deletion [[User:SuperJumbo|Jumbo]] 04:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' Although I feel the subject is notable enough for an article, I think we should respect subject's wishes not to have an article if they're borderline cases. I'm not going to cite policies or laws on this--it's simple courtesy. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Disappointed but not surprised to discover that there is no entry on this site for `courtesy'. It redirects you to `etiquette', which is not the same thing at all. Andrew, perhaps you could write an entry for `courtesy'? Some people here might find it illuminating. jh. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:86.128.192.86|86.128.192.86]] ([[User talk:86.128.192.86|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.128.192.86|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
*'''Delete''' I agree, if he doesn't want to have an article, then he shouldn't have to. --[[User:MaXiMiUS|MaXiMiUS]] 04:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' as per above. -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' what's here as above, and use as redirect to [[Treasure Island]]. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 07:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' Reluctantly, I'm a bit disappointed with Jim's attitude, what if everybody else with an entry had the same view? It'd be a weaker less encyclopaedic site. [[User:MikesPlant|MikesPlant]] 10:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Delete''' it's marginal enough to respect his wish. Although I haven't verified it! [[User:Dlyons493|<FONT COLOR="#00FF00">Dl</FONT><FONT COLOR="#44FF00">yo</FONT><FONT COLOR="#99DD11">ns</FONT><FONT COLOR="#DDDD11">493</FONT>]] [[User_talk:Dlyons493|<FONT COLOR="#DDDD11">Ta</FONT><FONT COLOR="#00FF00">lk</FONT>]] 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' and redirect per Grutness. I would probably have voted the same way even if the subject didn't want us to; I'm not sure even a minor national award is sufficiently noteworthy to bring a regional broadcaster through [[WP:BIO]]; a bronze Sony is hardly the equivalent of a place on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, which is what our guidelines suggest is required. — [[User:Haeleth|Haeleth]] <small>[[User_talk:Haeleth|Talk]]</small> 14:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*Keep: I'm sorry to be the policy wonk, here, but if we're not voting to delete for policy reasons, we really ought not be involved in this discussion. There have been multiple high profile individuals who have been unhappy with their articles (Siegenthaller, anyone? Brandt, anyone?). I could see a '''redirect''' to [[Treasure Island]], however, as "Jim" is almost certainly not the proper birth name for the article. I hate to be the stinker, here, but we really should be offering a better rationale for deletion, if we're going to delete. (My actual preference would be the redirect only, but that's because I think the figure is too low profile to have an article. His fame is real enough (I listen to World Service), but show hosts are below the line I like to set for inclusion.) [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 14:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' It was actually a silver Sony award, which underlines one reason why I don't want an entry on this site. Here's 'a better rationale for deletion': it's about me, and I want it deleted. Jim Hawkins. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:86.128.192.86|86.128.192.86]] ([[User talk:86.128.192.86|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.128.192.86|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
*'''Keep''' subject seems notable enough to me, and deleting articles whenever requested sets a bad precedent. I'm sure Jim has the good reasons to not want an article on here, I just worry about what happens when somebody who has rather more nefarious reasons comes along. --[[User:Daduzi|<font color="Brown">'''Daduzi'''</font>]] [[User talk:Daduzi|<font color="Green"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strong Keep''' This passes all the normal tests that people use to determine whether someone is "notable", as much as I do not like that concept myself. The information in the article is totally [[WP:V|verifiable]], is not going to be [[WP:OR|original research]], can easily be written with a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. [[WP:BIO|The specifically relevant policy]] is based on what I just said. Therefore, if this deletion occurs, it is not because the article cannot meet any current policy, it will be something else made up just for this article. There are not even any worries that this article will be libelous to the subject, and there is no law that says we cannot put verified information on the encyclopedia. [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans<span style="color:#009000;">e</span>ll</span>]] 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*What `bad precedent' does deleting articles on request set, apart from simple common courtesy? Past edits to this article have contained material that was defamatory, and the current version still has an error in it, as I've pointed out. I can't believe how ridiculously pompous and precious you're all being about this. No, there's no law that says you can't put verified information on the `encyclopedia'. But is it so difficult to respect the wishes of the subject of the article in question? Jim Hawkins <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:132.185.144.122|132.185.144.122]] ([[User talk:132.185.144.122|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/132.185.144.122|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
::*The bad precedent would be that there are no doubt individuals who would want their articles removed because they contain (true) information that they would want to suppress. I don't believe that to be the case this time, but like I said there's the issue of precedent to consider. As regards the article itself, if there are inaccuracies or outright falsehoods present there's nothing at all stopping you from correcting it yourself. --[[User:Daduzi|<font color="Brown">'''Daduzi'''</font>]] [[User talk:Daduzi|<font color="Green"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 23:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' per Ansell (viz., per [[WP:BIO]]) and Daduzi and inasmuch as, pace Jim, the wishes of the subject of the article in question are wholly irrelevant to the project and altogether unencyclopedic (toward which proposition see, e.g., the sundry [[Daniel Brandt]] AfDs (linked to at [[Talk:Daniel Brandt]]) or [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (3rd nomination)]]. Even the rather pernicious and oft-debated [[WP:BLP]] makes clear that a subject's desire that we not have an article apropos of him (especially where he/she is voltionally a public figure) should never be understood as dispositive vis-à-vis an AfD. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' Would stripping out the personal information and leaving only a profession history be amenable to Jim Hawkins? Because if it is, that's what I would vote for. [[User:Jacqui M|<font color="#663366">Jacqui</font>]][[User_talk:Jacqui M|<sup>★</sup>]] 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*No, I don't want anything about me on this site at all. And Joe, what's so massively important about the `project' that it can ride roughshod over the wishes of the subject, and (as I said earlier) common courtesy? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:132.185.240.121|132.185.240.121]] ([[User talk:132.185.240.121|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/132.185.240.121|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
::*'''Comment''' Well, in the first instance, your question presumes that a subject's views should matter, viz., that ''common courtesy'' ought to be at least a minor consideration. It shouldn't, IMHO, if only because we edit with disinterest and dispassion relative to the outside world, such that when we encounter those about whom we write, we ought not to act in our capacity as encyclopedists. With respect to the overarching question you raise, if a subject is notable (per whatever conflation of [[WP:NN]], [[WP:BIO]], [[WP:NOT]], and, I suppose, [[WP:V]] that an individual editor employs as his notability calculus—some, of course, don't believe notability to be an encyclopedic criterion, such that only ineluctable [[WP:V|unverifiability]] ought to keep an article out of the project), the project should cover him/her. For us not to do so in view of his/her wishes is irreparably to damage the spirit that underlies the project, and whilst the removal of any single biographical article is unlikely to harm the encyclopedia as a resource, the removal of one surely entails the removal of two and soon articles about biographical subjects as diverse as [[Crystal Gail Mangum]] and [[Michael Dellums]] are gone; the attendant damage to the project is surely evident. The question I'd pose to you, I think, is as to why you think ''common courtesy'' ought to matter, or, more broadly, why you might think the encyclopedia qua project to be acting untowardly by covering biographical subjects who don't desire to be covered. Notwithstanding that moral concerns are irrelevant to our encyclopedic project (toward which proposition I'd adduce the failed [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] and [[WP:NOT EVIL]]), our covering a subject who doesn't desire to be covered poses, for me, no moral dilemma betwixt encyclopedic and inter-personal concerns, and I can't conceive of a moral scheme under which such covering would be disfavored (which follows, I suppose, from the necessary subjectivity of morality). [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 19:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::*'''Comment''' See also, btw, [[Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Proposal:_No_Wiki_BLP_at_all_if_the_living_person_objects._A_veto_option.__No_exceptions.|this active thread]] with respect to a veto option for prospective biographical subjects on the [[Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons|BLP talk page]]. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::*OK, I'm not sure where to start when it comes to discussing anything with someone who doesn't believe that common courtesy ought to be even a minor consideration. I think common courtesy ought to matter because it's the decent, thoughtful way to behave towards people. Sorry I can't dress it up in ridiculously pompous language, but that's what it boils down to. What escapes me is why your precious `project' can be so damn important as to regard moral concerns - in this instance, the morality of the `editors', as I believe you call yourselves - as `irrelevant'. And, you didn't answer my question. jh <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:86.128.192.86|86.128.192.86]] ([[User talk:86.128.192.86|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.128.192.86|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
:::::*I'm apologize if my answer to your question wasn't clear. You asked why the removal of this article would be deleterious. I meant to suggest that, whilst the removal of any one article isn't particularly damaging to the project, were we to remove every article the deletion of which a subject requests, the project would be harmed. With respect to common courtesy, there are two issues: (a) whether one when editing here must bifurcate his/her morality/personality (as, for example, the [[anti-abortion]] judge who must, in his official capacity, apply ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and its progeny, even as the consequences thereof may be contrary to his personal morality), in order that morality should play no role in the encyclopedic project; and (b) whether it is discourteous to refuse to delete an article apropos of a notable subject solely in view of that subject's requesting deletion. To be clear, I'd resolve (a) as ''yes'' and (b) as ''no''. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 23:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::*As the question was: "what's so massively important about the `project' that it can ride roughshod over the wishes of the subject, and common courtesy?", you've still not answered it. jh <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:86.128.192.86|86.128.192.86]] ([[User talk:86.128.192.86|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.128.192.86|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
:::::::*I thought that question was made in specific to your situation, such that my answer was that, whilst we may want to accomodate the wishes of any one person, it would be impractical and destructive for us to abide the wishes of all subjects. As to that general question, there's nothing particularly special about the project (although it aims to provide a free enyclopedia to the world and, ancillarily, provides a rather nice resource at which one may learn, share his/her knowledge, and interact salutarily with others); I don't, though, see any reason why one wouldn't ride roughshod over the wishes of a subject. I don't understand, I guess, though, why the wishes of the subject or common courtesy would matter even absent the project's being viewed as important. Plainly, I don't understand why you think it immoral or unsavory to undertake to publish information about a subject who does not desire that the information should be published, and no sense of courtesy or morality of which I'm aware would suggest that such publication is unsavory. I will put it as simply as I can: even if the project is only marginally beneficial to society writ large, and even if keeping biographies of unwilling subjects benefits the project only marginally, there is still no reason not to include such biographies because courtesy matters none, as it would in any other venture. That is, I think, where we differ. I'd never be concerned in publishing information or gossiping about another as to his/her feelings/privacy; I'd be concerned only about how such gossiping or publishing might affect me—I am, after all, am an [[objectivist (Ayn Rand)|objectivist]] not preternaturally disposed to feeling [[remorse]] in any substantive sense. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 02:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::*Straining the verbal diaorrhea, are you trying to say through the fog of overblown verbosity that you just don't care? jh <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:86.128.192.86|86.128.192.86]] ([[User talk:86.128.192.86|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.128.192.86|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
:::::::::*In a word, yes (although, consistent with my reasoning supra, I don't think we need to reach the question as to whether one cares individually). [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 15:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' Subject is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. The subject should have the right to request that specific information be removed or corrected but not have the entire article removed. The article appears to be accurate as is. If anything is incorrect then fix it. Don't delete the article. --[[User:Phoenix Hacker|Phoenix Hacker]] 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Excuse me, but who are you to decide what rights I have or don't have? If I don't have the right to have an entire article removed, what gives you the right to post that article in the first place? jh <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:86.128.192.86|86.128.192.86]] ([[User talk:86.128.192.86|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/86.128.192.86|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
*'''Strong Keep'''. OK, he's only marginally notable, but his request to remove the article adds to his notability. (Note to those who feel that the subject of an article should be able to ensure deletion; we do have guidelines reflecting articles about living people at [[WP:LIVING]]. It is un[[ethical]] to delete articles on request, whether or not it is courteous.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 00:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*Why does the fact that I want the article removed add to my notability? And why should it be unethical to delete articles on request? jh |
|||
*'''Strong Keep'''. I haven't yet seen anyone claim [[WP:NN]] (including the subject himself), and that's all that actually matters. If he does want to claim [[WP:NN]], let's hear it. [[User:DoriSmith|Dori]] 04:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*eh? What does that mean? Ah, someone else who thinks `all that actually matters' are the rules on a website *head in hands* jh |
|||
*Delete : He has asked for this to be done it is his right not to be listed without his consent he has clearly as demonstrated not given consent for this to be done. My advice to Mr Hawkins would be to seek legal advice if his request is not adhered to (vicar of dibley)<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:81.76.106.197|81.76.106.197]] ([[User talk:81.76.106.197|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/81.76.106.197|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
**This user has no edits apart from this discussion. [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans<span style="color:#009000;">e</span>ll</span>]] 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' Even if we could verify that the user claiming to be Jim Hawkins is who he claims he is (and there is certainly not sufficient evidence to determine that), it is not sufficient reason to remove the article. --[[User:Ptkfgs|Ptkfgs]] 12:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. Public figure. --ⁿɡ͡b [[User:Ngb|Nick Boalch]]<span style="padding: 0 0.1em;">\</span><sup style="font-size: 70%;">[[User_talk:Ngb|talk]]</sup> 12:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''': I think the article should be deleted because he is non-notable and he wants it to be deleted. AfD is not based upon precedent. What we do with this article has no bearing on what we do with others. Also, I am opposed to the idea that we are here to write an encyclopedia and that nothing else matters. However, encyclopedias (and newspapers, magazines and websites) do not require the subject's consent to write an article. If [[George W. Bush]] or [[Tony Blair]] wanted their articles deleted, we could not comply because the encyclopedia would be incomplete without their articles. When it comes to people of low notability, their wishes can be taken into consideration, in my opinion. This is not to knock Jim, very few people are notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 12:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment''' One of the IP's that the user has posted from seems belong to the BBC, but I must ask — other than that, what reason do we have to believe that this ''actually is'' the subject of the article requesting its deletion? That's one of the problems with allowing subject-requested removal of biographical articles — we still don't know that it ''is'' Jim Hawkins requesting this. --[[User:Ptkfgs|Ptkfgs]] 12:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***'''Comment''': I think coming from the BBC is enough information for a deletion request of an article on a non-notable person (if he was truly notable, I would not recommend that the article be deleted, regardless of his wishes). I do not see what anyone would gain by impersonating him on Wikipedia, either. Anyway, I also think that the article should be deleted because he is non-notable, so for me it does not matter much if it is not him. -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 13:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' This article should be deleted, as the subject is not well known. There isn't much information on this page, and it reads more like a personal resume or vanity page. I also understand that the subject wants this page deleted, and we should honor his right to privacy. --[[User:Athena2006|Athena2006]] 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' I'm troubled at the "common courtesy deletions" being used as a standard for article deletion. How easy is it for anyone to claim to be any of a mass of BLP and request an article to be deleted and how are we to authenticate that identity? If we take the request on face value in a skewed sort of way we go smack in the face of [[WP:Verify]]. |
|||
:But apart for that, the subject's notability should be evaluated on its own merits regardless of the subject's personal wishes. How often do we delete [[WP:VAIN]] articles or [[WP:AUTO]] when more often the not the subject would certainly wish for the article to be kept. In those cases the common good of the Encyclopedia (as a quality source of knowledge for all) outweighs personal agenda. It's somewhat hypocritical to hold the "subject's wishes" higher in one regard then in the other. Privacy is protected well under the guidelines of [[WP:BLP]] and I see no violation in this article. All that is left is the consideration of whether this article and its subject matter's notability fits into the common good of Wikipedia's desire to provide knowledge. To that extent, I think the subject is very notability as a featured BBC presenter. His voice and opinions reaches many listeners over a variety of subject matters. His photography also adds to his notability. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 07:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' - Though I do think that whoever makes the final decision should request guidance from the highest wiki authority. [[User:Mallanox|Mallanox]] 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' The matter of notability seems to be a shady area. Do we have articles on all radio presenters? A majority? A strong minority? Of course not. Most of our airwaves voices go unrecorded on Wikipedia, as do those of newspaper journalists and minor authors. The criteria for undisputed notability is probably national exposure: in Australia television presenter [[Jana Wendt]] has an article (albeit a brief one), Canberra newsreader [[Peter Leonard]] does not, despite a local career of several decades. Editors may contemplate their own local examples. In this case, I think that the subject's own wishes have some weight, especially when considering the advice on living people coming right from the top. Lastly, and while this goes against the notability argument to some extent, my feeling is that co-operating in a reasonable and courteous manner with media presenters is a policy that pays far higher dividends than needlessly antagonising them. --[[User:SuperJumbo|Jumbo]] 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <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 talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |
|||