Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Dowbiggin

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Or at worst no consensus to delete. Consensus appears to be that Mr Dowbiggin is notable enough for inclusion. We normally give particular weight to deletion requests by article subjects only in cases of borderline notability (WP:DGFA#Biographies of living people). This is not such a case. Two "delete" opinions are unconvincing in the light of policy and have been given less weight in assessing consensus: that by Bermicourt, who appears to mistake the purpose of a deletion discussion, and that by NYyankees51, who does not identify the BLP problems he thinks are present here. Should there be such problems, this discussion does not show why they cannot be addressed by requesting administrative intervention. I have read the OTRS request, and it does not contain additional material relevant to this discussion. In particular, Mr Dowbiggin does not tell us what content he objects to for which reason. Any unblocks are not decided through this process, but through an {{Unblock}} request.  Sandstein  21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Dowbiggin

[edit]
Ian Dowbiggin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination, per OTRS ticket ticket:2011102510018627: The subject of this article has contacted Wikipedia by email and claims the article contains inaccuracies and would like it considered for deletion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Point is that mr. Dowbigging is trying to sweep a few uncomfy but sourced things under the table. He used already a string of sockpuppets to achieve that, and now tries it by OTRS. How shall I say it: "An inconvenient truth". I am very unhappy about this attempt... Night of the Big Wind talk 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Mr. Dowbiggin is clearly notable and should have used the talkpage to discuss the part he is unhappy with. This is gaming the system. Night of the Big Wind talk 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Contentious contents dealing with living people, moreover when based on dubious sources and disputed by the subject, should be aggresively removed. Any user, included the own subject, are invited to do so, per WP:BLP. The onus probandi lies on those who are attempting to publish those contentious contents and they should first discuss and provide reliable sources before publishing anything, meanwhile those contents should not be included at all but removed. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He clearly passes WP:PROF#C3 by virtue of the FRSC. The article needs some care per WP:BLP (e.g. is lifesitenews reliable for this topic?) but does not seem overly biased one way or the other to me, and even if it were I don't see a case being made that deletion is the only possible cure. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:BLP. Actually, the ordinary procedures to deal with the so called "inaccuracies", have been clearly ineffective. Even it has been overlooked each recomendation to be patient with the people who claims to be affected with contentious contents, instead in this case the affected one, Dowbiggin, was promptly blocked accused of sockpuppetry and he was even entirely ignored, when he was clearly a non'wkipedian, not used with the wikipedia procedures but solely trying to warn about and to delete some contentious content against him. Contentious and surely false contents which finally were found to be unsourced and based on dubious sources[1]. Indeed contentious contents published by a real very disturbing sockpuppet (called User:Jabbsworth) who used 9-sockpuppets, who was recently blocked forever and who violated WP:BLP issues more than one time and the last time precisely so stubbornly attempted to circumvent the system by linking to an external link in order to publish some contents that the community found to be against the WP:BLP[2]. And it clearly seems that Dowbiggin was just one of his targets, whom the mentioned disturbing 9-sockpuppet attempted by all means to discredit due Dowbiggin's academic work and results are against his (of the mentioned disturbing 9-sockpuppet) agenda. Now, that Dowbiggin still raises again some concerns about the contents published about him, again it seems some wikipedians are still unable to seriously deal with them, but instead there have been raised here even more accusatory comments against the affected one, for example, accusing without any proof, that he is allegedely attempting to "sweep the truth." This is unacceptable. Per WP:BLP any contentious contents, like those raised by the subject, and based on dubious unreliable sources like in this case should be deleted, not responded with accusations and blocks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note It seems Dowbiggin feels that contents dealing with his positions and opinions are not well represented in the article, so it is absurd to give confidence and more weight to some dubious sources and OR-phrases built by an expulsed 9-sockpuppet (with a proved lack of disposal to stick to the BLP policies[3]), than to the own subject explanations, when dealing precisely with his own opinions and positions, if you'll forgive the repetition. To add that I clearly found some of the sources are very wrong represented, included some prominent cherry picking, phrases out of context, and OR absurd conclusions. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The article did not just have a few "inconvenient truths" - it seems to be quite clearly written with a POV against his positions, and thus needed noticeable pruning. I have tried to fairly represent his views without the internal argumentation which had been in the BLP, while not expunging criticism, and material which did not actually have biographical relevance, or which were adequately covered in fewer words. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject's book list conclusively proves notability, for example his euthanasia book alone is held by ~1500 institutions. This discussion here is strictly about the notability of the subject and, consequently, the existence of the article. The complaints referred to above regard "merely" its content of the article and the interested eds should hopefully arrive at a version that is considered to be satisfactory and POV-free. Uncontroversial keep. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note AfDs are not the place for personal attacks of any sort. Meanwhile, my attempt at bringing the article into proper compliance with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV was reverted with the edit summary: Please use the talkpage first as these alterations are controversial. Collect (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lack of notability may be a common reason for bringing articles to AfD, but it's not the reason here; and in general a lack of notability is not the only reason why it might be better to delete an article than to keep it. I'm not a radical deletionist, but AfD is one of the cornerstones of quality control in en.wikipedia; reducing all AfD discussions to an assessment of only one attribute of an article, out of many possible attributes, is missing the point. bobrayner (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Which I hoped not to say, but it is clear that NPOV is not present in this article, and use of neutral wording is not supported there. Better to delete than face an uphill struggle to make it comport with policy. Collect (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't delete clearly notable people just because they don't wish to be discussed on Wikipedia. That's one privilege that's reserved for borderline-notable people. But this guy is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a clear WP:PROF #3 pass on its own, and additionally his books have been reviewed in scholarly journals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The attempt to refactor contentious dubious contents were responded with blocking the subject due a technicism. Now the affected subject does not have any privilege except asking for deletion. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being the subject of an article doesn't exempt one from Wikipedia policies. He was blocked for using sockpuppets to remove well-sourced information, just as anyone would have been. Looking at the edits, it seems that it's possible that the reason for the removal is that his views have changed, but that's not the right way to go about it; if that's the cause of the dispute, the information should be recast in past rather than present, preferably with a reliable source (SPS would be okay here) indicating a change of view, rather than removed entirely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The WP:BLP encourages the wikipedians to be patience and do not bite those subjects who comes feeling affected with the contents published about them in wikipedia. Even -let me cite- "the Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material". Actually also WP:BLP encourages those subjects and other users to aggresively delete contentious contents bad or poorly sourced. And it seems that he did not removed well sourced information but even some of that information was finally removed due based on dubious or wrong interpretation of the source (for example about his alleged positions about gays, his alleged activism used in order to disqualify his academic work as allegedely biased, etc.), and I also could add that a lot of information in the article is still Original Research or UNDUE weighted by cherry picking (for example although his academic work as historian is recognized as objective by the sources, currently those sources are used to pick up isolated phrases of criticism), in order to misrepresent the subject. If the subject is still dispossed to express his concerns at any rate he is not able to edit wikipedia without violating the indefinite block that was applied to him, which is entirely contrary to Wikipedia:BLPEDIT#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article and finally drove to this AfD. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • PD: It should be noticed that all the controversial edits in Dowbiggin's article were made by the mentioned expulsed 9-sockpuppeteer (User:Jabbsworth) in order to misrepresent and discredit Dowbiggin's academic work as allegedelly biased and inaccurate (for example representing Dowbiggin as an alleged "biased"[4][5] through tagging him as a "catholic"[6][7][8] "conservative"[9], "anti-gay"[10][11][12] and "fringe" author, and even removing positive mentions on his work[13]), and it was evidently a grotesque attempt to discredit and to remove Dowbiggin as a reliable source in other articles where Dowbiggin was being used as a source[14]; for instance, see how this same 9-sockpuppeteer who edited the Dowbiggin article then removed contents in another article which was sourced on Dowbiggin's hitorical work, claiming precisely this: "remove grotesque over-reliance on one conservative Catholic euthanasia opponent for fringe opinions linking euthanasia to Darwinism and eugenics" (sic!)[15]. The intentions and shape of those edits are evident and did drive to the reasonable protest of the subject. If that sort of edits contrary to WP:BLP are not removed, and until now there has not been any disposal to do so but to punish the subject complaints, then the article should be removed as the subject is asking for. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Groan. I am leaning to say Delete, given that this BLP was owned by a now-blocked sockpuppeteer who turned it into an attack piece. People above say that the biography seems quite neutral – well, it isn't. It may sound neutral, if all you know about the subject is based on reading our biography of him. And if that is the case, then you will think that Dowbiggin coined the term birth dearth – he didn't – and that in spite of a world population now at 7 billion, Dowbiggin is an idiot and a religious crank who thinks the world's population is in fatal decline (needless to say, not true either). I am prepared to change my mind if within a week this biography is turned around to something reflecting the man's actual standing in the scientific community, but if not, then it will remain Delete. --JN466 04:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in general agreement with Collect, JN466 and ClaudioSantos. Dowbiggin is a respected historian, yet the article continues to provide a completely different view of him. He meets the technical requirements for having a biography, but at the same time the article itself is far too POV to be acceptable, focusing only on a small aspect of his work. If it could become balanced I'd be ok with that, and hopefully this will eventuate, but in lieu of this, deletion seems like the best way forward. Sometimes it is better to not have an article that to unfairly treat the subject. - Bilby (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is just stupid. If there are issues with neutrality in the article, then fix it. It's not like the article is significantly long. Dowbiggin is clearly notable and I see absolutely no point in this discussion. SilverserenC 06:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who's gonna fix it? Who's gonna keep an eye on it afterwards? The number of biographies keeps going up, while the number of editors looking after them goes down. If we have too many to look after responsibly, we should reduce our workload. --JN466 06:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deleting content is not the proper method of dealing with that. If necessary, fix the issues and then full protect the article, problem solved. Deleting articles just because you think we can't patrol them well enough is asinine and undoes the entire point of everything we do here. SilverserenC 06:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is the point of what we are doing here? Hosting biographies of living people that are unfair and insulting to them? I am not prepared to take on yet another baby and tidy up yet another hatchet job. Are you? Then go ahead. But if neither of us is, and nor is anyone else, does it help this project to host crappy biographies, in the hope that some mythical "fixer" will come along in one, five or ten years, in the full knowledge that we may end up hosting crap for the foreseeable future, and hurting both a BLP subject and this project's reputation in the process? If that mythical fixer ever does come along, they can start from scratch. --JN466 07:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tried to fix it - and was rewarded for my troubles NOT by an editor sitting on the BLP to make sure it remains in violation of policy. In such a case, the closing admin should examine the BLP, and, upon finding that efforts to bring it into compliance have been rebuffed, decide whether such an article should then remain in defiance of policy. Correct. Collect (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When someone satisfies our notability criteria, it means we may host an article about them; it doesn't mean we must. If the subject doesn't want one, and has had to struggle against sockpuppets trying to undermine him, he should have the right not to be bothered by Wikipedia any further—particularly when he is within a borderline-notable margin. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've already weighed-in above and would like only to draw the closing admin's attention to a few facts. First, the opinion that the subject's notability is borderline is nonsense on its face. Dowbiggin is a prolific author whose impact and notability are conclusively demonstrated by significant institutional holdings, for example 1476, 562, 474, 373, and so forth (there are more). These statistics are a clear pass of WP:PROF #1 and likely surpass a large fraction of the academics currently on WP. Second, some of the "delete" arguments above seem to be based on pragmatism ("Who's gonna fix it?", "Better to delete than face an uphill struggle"), the existence of socking ("this same 9-sockpuppeteer who edited the Dowbiggin article"), and ad hominem-based agenda ("Dowbiggin is an idiot and a religious crank"), all of which are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. As with numerous other previous cases, this article should have the courtesy of being kept and properly cleaned, even if it involves a little work. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • That if the subject pass of WP:PROF#1 then he may deserves an article is one thing. That the current "article" deserves to exists is another thing. It means: if the subject pass of WP:PROF#1 at any rate the subject does not deserves the current "article". And per WP:BLP the procedure is not let the crap published and then correct but quite the contrary: first discuss and correct and be sure the thing is right and only then publish anything. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, what you've said is inscrutable. Are you maintaining that the content of the article is somehow objectionable and that is why the article must be deleted? If so, than I'm afraid you're wrong. Such articles are fixed, so that they're POV-free and acceptable, not deleted. This process is based on WP:CONS. I assure you, there are many significantly more controversial BLPs here than this one. Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
        • I thought the inclusion criteria does not justify to open an article full of "significant" or "insignificant" falsehoods but at any rate falsehoods misrepresenting, discrediting and causing "significant" or "insignificant" grievence to a living person. And I should add that significancy of the grievence is something that should be determined and based primarily on the affected subject perception and concerns. At any rate, controversial dubious and/or false contents should not be published whatever they are considered significant or insignificant. I repeat, per WP:BLP: first discuss and correct and be sure the thing is right and only then publish anything -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're postulating some kind of preemptive formality that doesn't exist. The plain fact is that this subject is notable. If the content-related controversy is indeed as serious as you represent, then the page can simply be reduced to a stub of biographical information, list of books, etc. – that is, a simple recitation of facts and then be protected at some level for a suitable amount of time. That should certainly satisfy any concern you have, yes? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
            • The preemptive formality actually exists at wikipedia: do not publish false nor dubious contents nor OR, and although it is allowed to tag those contents with templates like "citation needed" nevertheless they should be removed immediately when there is a BLP involved. But let assume your proposal and let me put it even simpler: change it now or delete it now. Meanwhile, per WP:BLP there should be published solely an advice that the article is under construction. That should satisfy the request of keeping the article, but if that still does not satisfy the subject concerns I am certainly able to understand his choice to represent himself by his own means and words for every reason. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Several users seem to be engaged at this very moment in active discussion to resolve this issue. That is how WP works. Conversely, you seem to have some separate agenda for deleting this page and are trying to justify an end-run around standard policies. My observations above still stand: (1) subject is notable, and (2) most of the "delete" arguments are irrelevant. We fix the content, we do not delete the page. You're free to keep repeating yourself, but I'll try to sit the rest of this discussion out on the sideline. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
                • Any comment about my seeming agenda and alleged hiden intentions does seem like a sort of accusation that I will not discuss at all for every reason. I endorse Jayen466, Bilby, SlimVirgin and Collect: let change it or delete it. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and reinstate a more factual and balanced article in due course. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and turn into a stub if necessary, as I did with this test version. The subject is clearly notable. Jesanj (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, request for replies What do you think now? I'm still working on it, obviously, but i'm removed most of the erroneous and misattributed information and clarified any wording that seemed POV-ish. Better than it was? SilverserenC 02:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better, thank you. I don't know enough about the subject matter to say whether the reviews we have used are the most important and representative ones, but you have clearly improved the article. --JN466 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy/Delete WP:BLP is an important policy that we should take seriously, and until the apparent problems are resolved, it's best to remove the article from mainspace. I suggest userfying it into either a volunteer's user space where all editors can work on it, or into WikiProject Biography. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the current version is now a well-sourced factual recitation of the subject's work. Nice job. Would those who have been opposed please take a look and weigh-in on the new version? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I hope mr. Dowbiggin and ClaudioSantos can live with this version. I doubt it, because I support this version Night of the Big Wind talk 17:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am basing my recommendation on the current state of the article about a notable academic and author, and I won't look at earlier versions because that is the past and I don't want to view what may have been BLP violations unless necessary. If there were BLP problems previously, they have been eliminated, and if Silver seren is primarily responsible for eliminating the problems, then I commend that editor. I am adding this article to my watch list and encourage other participants in this debate to do so as well, so that it can be maintained in compliance with BLP policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Solely comparing the current version with this edit made by the subjetc, still there could be mentioned some BLP concerns, for example, in the first paragraph. It is not hard to understand why the expulsed user insisted to tag the subject as a "catholic commentator", an "opponent" of this and that, etc., thus in order to discredit the subject as a sort of biased source more easily removable in other wikipedia articles, as an alleged unreliable or undue-weighted source. But, according to the sources and even according with the rest of the current article, the subject in the first paragraph is not being correctly represented. Surely Silverseren would realize the thing more or less easily, only by means of doing the mentioned comparisson. Last to mention that other parts of his work and books are absolutely not mentioned, but as Bilby mentioned, the current article is focused on few parts, and I have to add: precisely those parts which were of some interest for the agenda of the past unfortunate owner of the article. I can not assure that the subjetc still has other concerns and still feels misrepresented, which would be reasonable given the circumstances. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems clear, looking at the reliable sources within the current version of the article, that describing him as a "a commentator on Catholicism, and an opponent of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide" is accurate, neutral and supported by the sources. I do not see how such a characterization could be considered a BLP violation unless the description was unsupported by the sources. If he has done notable work in other areas that is not mentioned in the article, then the solution would be to to add that referenced content to the article. ClaudioSantos, if you believe that your topic ban prevents you from doing so, then please suggest additions on my talk page, and I will do my best to facilitate the additions that you wish. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Instead of suggesting additions, I will solely notice some discrepances which could seem sutil but they are not. There is not any source for "commentator on catholicism", for example. And I still think that it had a clear purpose to highlight in the first paragraph that he is a "consultant in the christian cathedral..." despite he had other jobs. Also the sources refers to his work as an academic work on the history of medicine, and not solely related to topics like those of my topic ban. And also in these "controversial and banned" topics, Dowbiggin is well recognized as an historian rather than an "opponent" (despite his positions on these topics) and his work is considered and estimated as very objective and accurate, but the current version gives the impression that his books and work were made and written from a non-objective and biased position by tagging him not as historian but as "oppponent" on those topics, why so? well in order to do this (read the edit summary) and this. It means, to discredit him and remove him as a reliable source. Another example?: That he gave a conference in an event, it was in the past cherry picked by the past unfortunate owner of the article, as an attempt to precisely discredit his work as a sort of partisan non-objective pamphlet; that content was finally fortunately removed by Silver. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The relatively minor items you mention can easily be addressed through the normal process of editing and improving the article on a notable person, as opposed to deleting the article. If the phrase "commentator on Catholicism" bothers you, though it seems an inoffensive characterization to me based on the first source, then please suggest an alternate phrase. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this discussion, ClaudioSantos, is that you are under a broad topic ban regarding all discussion of eugenics (and other related matters), and this particular author has written on eugenics. My friendly advice to you is to comment no more on this particular AfD. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: In any event, can we please unblock the subject? As far as I can see, he has made a grand total of 7 edits, using two non-overlapping accounts. To block someone like that as a sockpuppeteer is a clear violation of WP:BITE and WP:BLPEDIT; and bearing in mind that his biography was slanted against him by a real sockpuppeteer, it is in fact adding insult to injury. It is this sort of thing that brings this project into deserved disrepute. --JN466 02:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the subject is notable enough to have a bio there are plenty of professors who meet that mark who don't have articles - there's now mandate for us to have an article on every professor and if someone who is "notable" but not famous (however you want to define that) doesn't want to have an article then I believe their wishes should be respected. I'd feel differently if this were an elected official, a senior amdministrator or someone who has broken through into what might be called mainstream notability. Alternatively, see what changes he wants made to the article and, if they're reasonable, make them. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the standard offer we make to people who write into OTRS: tell us what's wrong and we'll fix them. But they seem to prefer to have ownership of their articles rather than actually telling us what's wrong. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom, this sort of comment is inappropriate to make in the discussion of a BLP that well and truly had been slanted against the subject. And sometimes there is a real echo chamber effect here, because OTRS volunteers getting a complaint from someone they've never heard of first look at the Wikipedia BLP to find out who that person is. And if that's a hatchet job, where some editor has focused on some bit of sourceable negative info, then I imagine it's easy to slip into a mindset of mistrust: "Aha, zey vant to vitevash zeir biography". The fact is that many (perhaps not all, but many) of our biography subjects are notable and reasonable people who know very well what their reception looks like overall, and if they tell you that their biography is slanted against them, then you should put more prima facie credence in what they're saying than into what our article is saying, because in my experience it is very rare indeed that subjects' complaints are without merit. Regards. --JN466 17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this view, but the salient question is whether the article, as it now stands, has remedied this problem. If so, then I think we probably could all agree that it is a keep, because notability itself seems no longer to be in question. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Vale, you're arguing WP:WAX while admitting this person is notable (while the subject is notable enough to have a bio). Are you sure you mean "delete"? :) I think Cullen has rightly observed that the content issues have now largely been resolved and that, if anyone still feels that there are specific issues remaining, those should be called-out so that they can be fixed (as Tom just indicated). The broad consensus, even from the "deletes" such as yourself, seems to be that the subject is notable. Unless there are still specific content problems, it would seem there isn't much more to discuss. Agricola44 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2012 (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/Ian_Dowbiggin&oldid=1078429907"