Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Holloway (historian)

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The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawn by proposer. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Holloway (historian)[edit]

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

I have concern about past versions (I would reload the third version or current version if people agree that it should be deleted and if people think that is right.). My main concern is that the info in education and personal life (may breach privacy, particularly the bit about owning a ducatti that was on the fourth page I published, I think that the third page combined with the better referencing of Derek R Bullamore would be better) is not needed on a biographical page and is based on only one article. Please advise me because I am not an experienced editor and am unsure of the correct procedure. Rig15 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion discussions are not generally for editing issues. Details about his motorcycle can be addressed by normal editing, talk page discussion and perhaps the BLP noticeboard. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still concerned that it breaches privacy and that it is still accessible by viewing the history of the article. Rig15 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your concerns but you can request oversight of content if it violate personal privacy. Saying what kind of motorcycle he owns is an issue? FloridaArmy (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit of breach of privacy to me in hindsight. How could I get an oversight revision deletion for the fourth revision that I made. Rig15 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that editing the revision is the appropriate thing to do, therefore I will delete the proposed deletion of the pageRig15 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Nom gives no valid reason for deletion whatsoever. "This isn't a valid deletion nomination," as TheGracefulSlick is wont to say. The sources already in the article demonstrate dispositively that subject meets GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2018 (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.