Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Constable

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Even if there were no consensus, I'd consider the conditions of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE met. Sandstein 17:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Constable

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Patrick Constable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP's subject has submitted a WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST at ticket:2022080910002407. He does not meet the revised WP:NOLYMPIC guidelines, and, even if he could otherwise be shown to be notable as an athlete, would only be marginally so. As such I think his request should be honored. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Tamzin and per WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST unless someone is able to find some really strong significant coverage that supports keeping the article over the wishes of the subject. I'm going to also add that it should be explained to the subject that deletion of the article doesn't mean that it can't be refunded or recreated in the future if the subject suddenly starts receiving lots of significant coverage (positive or negative). I also think it should be explained to the subject that if the community decides to honor his request that he shouldn't take that as meaning he can re-create the article or have someone do it on his behalf just to try and exert some editorial control over article content. If "delete" is the consensus, then perhaps the title should be WP:SALTed to prevent any attempts at recreation without at least an administrator review. Finally, it should also be noted that there are eight non-English Wikipedia articles (Arabic, German, Persian, French, Egyptian Arabic, Dutch, Norwegian and Chinese) about the subject as well and the deletion of those articles (if also desired) probably needs to be resolved locally at each of those Wikipedia projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did not find sufficient independent coverage to argue against the BLPDELETEREQUEST. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Can't see any reason for deletion. Clearly notable, even though a bit of effort is required to find online sources. Deb (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the subject's request not a reason for deletion? And of the sources you've added: In [1], 2+1⁄2 sentences and a photo caption are about Constable; [2] is half a sentence; and [3] is a piece by Constable himself. I don't see how that adds up to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, even ignoring his request that we delete the article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, no. I've never previously come across a case of us deleting an article just because the subject of that article wants to conceal the less savoury aspects of their past career. Deb (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It certainly has precedent; I'm pretty sure the incident that led to BLP's establishment (and maybe to BLPDELETEREQUEST?) is similar. Ovinus (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reasoning behind that particular decision appears to be to do with unreliable sources which would not have been allowed anyway. But this is a case where certain facts are in the public ___domain but the subject wishes to conceal them. I'd be more inclined to accept it if this were a different Patrick Constable who didn't want to be confused with the one in the article. Deb (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think we should be using our BLP articles as a way to punish the subject for "certain facts ... in the public ___domain". If those facts are in the public ___domain somebody can find them elsewhere. Regardless of the reason for the subject wanting to delete the article, the notability is at best borderline, and with that being the case I feel like we should default to respecting somebody's wishes to not be included on Wikipedia. nableezy - 17:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never saw it before, presumably because you removed it. I find your explanation baffling, since it's clearly this particular fact that the subject wishes not to reveal to the rest of the world. It's always hard to argue with a Wikilawyer, so I'll stop bothering. Deb (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was nominated because of a request by the subject, not because Lugnuts created it. Maybe try, just try a little bit, to AGF? nableezy - 14:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you paid attention to the way I wrote the comment, you'll understand that I'm not a fan of Lugnuts' tactics. It was pretty obviously an implication of unconscious bias/switching off by a judge/referee in response to persistent frivolous behaviour by a participant in a dispute/applicant in some process etc. Of course any smart POV pusher would try and keep the admins happy to go block-shopping and so that others don't notice their fake edits, misrepresentation of sources etc (not that any POV applies here), as Lugnuts' purpose on WP was quite different, but obviously his purpose was inherently incompatible with keeping a low profile. Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Delete per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Commonwealth Games medalist. Here are some sources[4], [5] and [6] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first two sources don't count toward WP:BASIC; the first one is a Q and A and the second is pretty trivial. The third source is maybe okay. In any case, I'm of the opinion that requested deletion should be taken pretty seriously. Ovinus (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The first is one of the largest newspapers in Adelaide, that shows coverage, ie WP:SIGCOV. The second one is over the WP:100WORDS, which demonstrates WP:SIGCOV as well. Here are two other sources [7] and [8] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      A piece by the subject is not "coverage". If it were, literally any journalist or opinion columnist would be notable. The second is from "E-news, Charles Darwin University’s fortnightly news bulletin". It's unclear whether that's a reliable source, since some such bulletins are just thrown together by an intern in a university's comms office, and this one has no masthead, statement regarding whether there's editorial review, etc. I'm alsto not sure it could be called "independent of the subject". It is, besides, a brief bit of routine coverage of him failing to win a medal. You will find coverage like this of basically anyone who competes at the Olympics. Your third source is, yes, a single instance of significant coverage in one reliable source, although it's still routine coverage, nothing in-depth. Your fourth source is from what appears to be a blog. No masthead, no indication of editorial review, not even any bylines. And most of it is an interview. And your fifth is a press release from a government agency, which, as it makes negative claims about him, cannot be included in the article absent verification in secondary sources. (I have removed it twice in the past; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive338 § Patrick Constable.)
      Most of all, though, I'm troubled that there are now three keep !votes, in response to someone's request that we delete our article on him, and not a single one has explained why we should go against the normal practice of honoring such requests by non-notable and marginally notable people. When we discuss BLP athlete stubs, we often talk about the question of whether it's responsible to have so many brief, unmaintained articles on living people. Well here we have a case where a living person is saying he doesn't want to be in our encyclopedia. He's reading this, I imagine, so perhaps someone can explain to him why we so desperately need an article on him, despite our inability, to date, both to expand it and to keep it free of BLP violations.. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might be marginally notable. But there's not enough strong coverage and I'd rather err on the side of deletion. Ovinus (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Tamzin As I can't view the ticket, could you possibly explain how you can be sure it is the same Patrick Constable who is requesting deletion of "his" article? Deb (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He sent the email from an address that Constable has publicly said belongs to him. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 11:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that seems reasonable. I have to say I find it hard to understand why someone who is a public figure and whose career is ongoing - and who's even put themselves on LinkedIn - would request suppression of the article. Deb (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I get it now. Deb (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to change my vote to DELETE based on the subject wanting their article deleted. Sorry I must have misinterpreted it when I originally read it. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrick_Constable&oldid=1104742246"