Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris McAsey

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 keep. Sandstein 19:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McAsey[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion requested by article subject via OTRS (Ticket#2020012810001648). Listing at subject's request, no rationale provided. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: can you give any more background on the reason for the subject's request? Is it a specific issue with article content, or a mere dislike of having an article on himself? – Teratix ₵ 12:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subject states that he did not create the article himself and wants it deleted; no further reason for deletion was offered. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason given for deletion. Subject passes the relevant SNG and given this article from just last year I don't see any privacy concerns. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NFOOTY and with a son now as a top draft pick, interest in him will only increase. Neutral article, nothing controversial at all. The-Pope (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if not speedy keep, as no reasonable rationale for deletion has been given. The article is brief, straightforward, well-sourced and not unduly invasive of the subject's privacy. If the subject has a specific issue with the article's content, he is welcome to bring it up on the talk page. – Teratix ₵ 05:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Teratix and agree about the issue being brought up on the talk page. Bookscale (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's Chris McAsey, the page subject. The main reason I requested deletion is because the page includes my DOB and age. I'm looking for a job and when recruiters Google me, the search page includes a Wikipedia extract, including my age. (It also incorrectly includes a photo of Chris McAsey, the New Zealand rower). My age isn't otherwise publicly available and I believe it has a detrimental effect on my employment opportunities. The other reasons were that I didn't think the fact that I played one game of VFL football met the notability criteria, and that the page presented a narrow view of my life. Those concerns have been alleviated by a recent edit, which added some relevant details. If my DOD and age can be removed, I don't have any issue with the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusty1962 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've removed the date as Wikipedia allows this (see here) but the year you are concerned about has unfortunately been published externally elsewhere (for example, see the two external links on the article page). It seems like your bigger problem is Google that shows up this information - if you Google search your name and click the "feedback" link under the Google profile that comes up on the right, you are able to ask Google to remove any information as the relevant subject. And you should direct your recruiters to this and this! Bookscale (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sports notability is really too low of a threshold, especially in this case, to justify keeping the article against the subject's wishes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the subject is only concerned about one aspect which has been removed to the extent Wikipedia allows it. Bookscale (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As others have stated, subject's concerns have been addressed. As the only delete !vote just says the article shouldn't be kept against the subject's wishes, this should have the same effect as an AfD withdrawn by the nominator, with the outcome being a speedy close as keep. Smartyllama (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Good luck, Crusty1962, on the job search! Bearian (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2020 (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.