Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hawkins (2nd nomination)

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hawkins

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




The subject has requested deletion of the article in otrs:3648175. Because of this, and marginal notability, I believe we can delete on policy, and on doing the right thing. Thank you for considering the request. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep As someone who has been a broadcaster on BBC Radio 4 (a national radio station in the UK), Jim Hawkins clearly passes the notability threshold. His demands to have the article deleted show that he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. If there are BLP issues there is a process for dealing with them. Jim, suggest you contact your Radio 2 colleague Ken Bruce who will be able to tell you all about having a page about yourself on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(expand comment) Jim Hawkins seems to meet WP:BIO via WP:ANYBIO section 1 and WP:ENT sections 2 and 3. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, per conversation with someone claiming to be the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per request of article subject. Votes for KEEP are not respecting the subject's wishes, IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not because of the request, but because Wikipedia doesn't host articles on all professors, all businesses, all radio show hosts, and so on. Notability criteria are discriminatory and I don't see any evidence supporting Jim Hawkins being a notable radio show personality. There are thousands of radio show hosts. A google search shows no basis of notability beyond "hosts an unexceptional show on a radio station" [1]. His BBC profile shows a couple of minor awards, again not enough to substantiate "notable radio presenter" [2]. There's (apparently) nothing else. There isn't a criterion for radio hosts but a look at criteria for academics shows quite a high standard communal standard is set, for notability in professions which have many individuals. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 - a broadcaster on a national radio station should be above the notability threshold. If BBC Radio Shropshire was as far as he'd got then I'd be persuaded that perhaps the notability threshold hadn't been reached. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. Merely "presenting an ordinary show on any national radio station" just isn't an appropriate criterion for notability of radio presenters. That's overly broad, especially when we check the criteria held in other professions. For example in academia, "being a professor at a major university" isn't enough, nor is "having published papers" (WP:PROF), and in politics "being a local minor politician" isn't enough even though they have a higher profile in the area than many people (WP:POLITICIAN). In fact in every area that formal criteria have been agreed, the requirements set by the community are quite a high level. The other criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER aren't particularly met either - there is no evidence of a history of especially significant roles, nor an especial fan base (beyond any usual presenter), nor "unique, prolific or innovative contributions". FT2 (Talk | email) 07:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note footnote 7 at Notability (people). It fairly concisely sets the yardstick to measure people like Jim Hawkins against. tedder (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim Hawkins presented a news programme on BBC Radio 4 - see article. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has been the subject of serious abuse and sheer stupidity by some Wikipedia contributors. But Jim Hawkins lives and works in the public domain with a high profile in Shropshire and the West Midlands. He is therefore a proper subject for Wikipedia. --Bodders (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence? Significant independent third party coverage of Jim Hawkins? (As opposed to one or two mentions in the local press to his area)? FT2 (Talk | email) 07:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hawkins is a celebrity in Shropshire. He hosts the most listened to radio programme in the county. He frequently hosts and opens high-profile charity and community events. He broadcasts private details of his life on his programme and on his twitter account. It is only on wikipedia that he demands privacy. Waterworldington (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A large audience would make the show notable, not the presenter. Choosing to tell the world about himself elsewhere isn't relevant to notability. This discussion would need evidence of the other claims. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He does have a large audience. For some reason his bigger radio programme on Saturday evenings which is broadcast on BBC Radio Shropshire AND BBC Radio Hereford & Worcester AND BBC Radio Stoke does not seem to be mentioned in the latest edition of his article. I doubt it would be too difficult to get some audience figures for his weekday and Saturday programmes. He also has a large following on twitter whom he has requested all 1200 of them to edit or delete his article. I do not quite understand why he finds the article so ofensive when in my view it just mirrors information he has on various BBC biog pages. Waterworldington (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm completely speculating here because I don't know the subject, and in fact had never heard of him before this. His quest for removal appears to me to be a control issue. Since he can't directly control exactly what appears on the article he doesn't want it to exist. I'd like all of the "right to privacy" advocates in this debate to consider the implications of a successful deletion bid based on that position. If everyone has such a right here, what is to prevent the publicity companies handling all sorts of very notable people from requesting deletion of their clients from Wikipedia?
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keepCleary and obviously notable media personality; if there are vandalism concerns the article can be protected. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for those !voting "keep". Above, Mjroots says the man is notable because he's been a broadcaster on Radio 4. Could anyone elaborate on this? As it now stands, the article merely says "His previous work has included BBC Radio 4 and Century FM", which is pretty much what his portrait on BBC Radio Shropshire says (without elaborating). Has there been any significant, disinterested coverage (other than mere bloggery, etc) of his appearances at Shropshire, on 4, or anywhere else? -- Hoary (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a !vote. Reason given for keeping/deletion are what count at the end of the day. It was me that said he was notable because he had been a broadcaster on BBC R4, not NonVocalScream. There seem to be some sources available via a Yahoo search, inluding coverage of bookcrossing and a bronze Sony Award in 2009. Mjroots (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone is a media personality at all then there is very likely to be enough interest in that person to warrant at least a small article about them here. As long as there are third party references regarding the subject of the articles that are available to use, I don't see what the issue is with having an article about them.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, that's an interesting line of argument. I wonder where the corollary will lead us. The people I tend to write about aren't media personalities in the slightest, and I have no reason to believe that more than a tiny percentage of people are interested. But that digression aside, this page that the article cites -- a short page written in the first person by somebody unidentified -- says He presented on local independent station Mercia Sound before joining the BBC in 1984, when he wrote and presented News Stand for BBC Radio 4. But it doesn't say if he was the sole writer or one of half a dozen writers, and it doesn't say if he presented it for hour after hour or just for a few minutes at a time for a handful of times. Would he be the same Jim Hawkins as the one who had some relationship with BBC Northampton and who's mentioned in a couple of books indexed by Google? Google News points to two mentions of somebody who might be him, one in a Toronto paper and the other in the London Evening Standard. Unsurprisingly, I see no mention in Google Scholar. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fact checking is obviously an issue, but that a completely separate question from notability. Additionally, the issues related to fact checking are not at all limited to biographical articles. I don't have any real figures to back this up, but I would speculate that on the whole biographical articles are fact checked much more thoroughly then other articles based on the BLP issues alone. Personally, I would give more weight to bio articles on Wikipedia then just about any other article (and that's still true currently, even without that flagged revisions system that's being talked about).
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are allowed to use judgment and common sense, and there is no requirement that Wikipedia have an article on all people who might pass WP:BIO. The subject (until evidence to the contrary is provided) might be a very marginal "pass", if one accepts the argument that all BBC radio presenters are notable, without any analysis. It appears the main point of notability is that the subject uses Twitter after not liking Facebook, and that does not seem a good basis to keep an article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My judgement and common sense say that, while there is no "requirement" to have an article on all notable biographies, this does not make a point to delete one that already exists. The main point of notability is him being a media personality, and it seems more than enough. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, if someone is important enough to mention in an article, aren't they notable enough for at least a stub article (assuming that there is a reference for what information is available)?
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Moved to keep. Marginal notability, subject has requested removal, it is not like he has any notable events to hide, so I respect his desire. Article adds nothing of value to the wiki, so he twitters is not useful to anyones research is it? Off2riorob (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Nothing of value" is POV. While I may personally agree, I am not entitled to decide what is "of value" or not for readers. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a perfect example of the misapplication of "notability", in my view. Cyclopis is exactly right, it's not up to us to determine value, especially not as part of a deletion discussion.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Privacy concerns don't apply to the existence of Wikipedia articles any more then they apply to news pieces, mention in a book, or anywhere else (consider the existence of "unauthorized" biographies, for example). The subject of a particular article certainly has some right to control the content of biographical articles about themselves (which BLP policy covers), but they don't have a right to prevent themselves being mentioned. For example, he's mentioned (and linked from) the BBC Radio Shropshire article, so if removing his article is appropriate is then removing his name from that article also appropriate or even required?
    As for the notability concerns, the article is referenced. I'm sure that it could be written better, and it's even possible that better references could be used, but that's not grounds for deletion. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the current article, so there's simply no reason to delete it.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Does Hawkins get permission from everyone he talks about on air? Do the BBC remove articles about people who object to them from their news pages? We - and they - have an inalienable right to write about what and whom we choose. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The OTRS link, above requires a password. What's the use of that? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Here's how fiercely he guards his privacy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimhawkinsbbcradioshropshire/2094382022/in/set-72157603414876597/ Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your unalienable right to talk about what and whom you choose..wow, all powerful wiki editor. There is an understanding that if people of limited notability request deletion of their biohraphy that we comply with their request. This article is of no value to any research, and no one will miss its twittering delights. I suggest this, we can write about who or what we like is a bit ego-maniacal and does little to endear the wiki to anyone. Off2riorob (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, I would take the exact opposite view. That some people feel they have a right to prevent others from writing about them seems to me to be very ego-maniacal. What right does Jim (or anyone) have to actively prevent anyone else from talking about them? People certainly have a right to protect their reputations (which is what BLP is all about), but I don't see how that can be extended into a right to prevent discussion at all.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No; not my inalienable right. Ours. Yours, too. Or so you think I should have the right to remove your comment, about me? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a big believer in alienable rights in a world where millions of people haven't even got the unalienable right to clean drinking water.This guy has politely requested that we not have a bio of him, on the grounds that he is not very notable and I am prepared to allow him that pleasure.The article adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia, it is of almost no importance, so hey, why not grant his request? Off2riorob (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I know that this is somewhat pedantic but the correct term is "inalienable". "Unalienable" would mean that the subject is impossible to transfer the rights to, but using "in-" means that there is something preventing the transfer (implying that the prevention could be removed, by law or some action for example). I also find it curious to assert that some people have their right to clean drinking water removed. I hope that you can back that statement up with an example, because frankly it calls into question your credibility in general. Many people certainly do not currently have access to clean drinking water, but as far as I know there is no one running around actively attempting to prevent people from gaining access to clean water.
    Anyway, I think that we all understand that the subject has asked that his article be removed (after reading the talk page, the old AFD, and some other comments, I would question the "politely" qualifier, but that's rather immaterial). You're comments seem to indicate that you believe that the person has a right to ask that of us in the first place, and I think several of us are questioning that position with good reason. If individuals have a right not to have an article at all here, doesn't that amount to censorship? In most cases people don't have a right to prevent a biographical book about themselves from being written, and I don't see why Wikipedia should be held to a different standard then that.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. No worthwile newspaper or publishing house would agree to such a request; I don't see why an encyclopedia should. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the english lesson, I think it was clear what I was meaning, just that in this fantastic world were we have all these rights that there are many people without even clean drinking water.
    I also think that people are resisting the requested removal on the grounds of we can so we will. I disagree with that and if and when those people get their way we will have a stub about a little known radio presenter or which there are about a million or more in the world. That is something worth fighting for isn't it? no! Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am "resisting" the removal because I believe that an article about a notable person does not deserve to be blanked only because its subject requests it. WP:AGF, please. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to be taken seriously I think that you should thank me for the "English lesson". I could have simply said nothing and thereby allowed the question to go unanswered, but that wouldn't have helped your argument one bit. Regardless, I agree with Cyclopia in that there is no reight to absolutely prevent an article about people from existing at all on Wikipedia. I think that this is an important topic to fight over, since it's effects could be fairly far reaching. People absolutely have a right to object to and have certain defamatory and otherwise damaging content removed, but those rights do not extend to the question of existence of the article at all (with the obvious caveat that if the potential article would otherwise be empty without non-BLP compliant content then it probably should then be deleted).
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point out, all OTRS tickets are private and confidential and accessible only to OTRS agents. If anyone needs confirmation of the content of the ticket, I or most OTRS agents can provide this. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious question. The awards he's won - do those count for notability? DS (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't they be?
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean the one award? this one? Sony_Radio_Academy_Awards ? Is not notable in itself and the only cite to it is the place were he works and the wiki only has a stub about it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sony_Radio_Academy_Awards isn't notable based on...what? you're personal opinion of it? That the article about the award here on Wikipedia is "only a stub" isn't indicative of any "non-notability". As a matter of fact, since it is an article on Wikipedia that would suggest that it does have some notability. Just because the notability of an award is limited to a single group doesn't convince me that it's value is below some arbitrary threshold which we should apply to Wikipedia.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's pretty clear that if the subject is notable then it's a marginal case. He's a presenter at a regional radio station and hasn't received press coverage outside that region. The article says he "worked" for Radio 4 (with a reference), but without elaboration this is not an indicator of notability - he could have been making the tea for all we know. The award might put him across the line, but only just. In these circumstances I think it is reasonable to grant the subject's request for deletion. Comparisons to Ronnie Biggs and Barack Obama are flawed - these are highly notable figures which have been (or will be) the subject of intense media interest for decades. Hut 8.5 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim Hawkins presented a news programme on BBC R4 - see article. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But for a matter of minutes or hours? And did anyone pay attention and write about it? -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I think that the notability arguments are fairly clearly in favor of keeping. The only real question remaining is a "right to privacy" question, concerning if the author has a right to request that the article be removed. I think that's a clear "no" as well, but that's the main center of debate.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I knew, the Sony Awards are the top level awards for British radio presenters, so he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) easily, per "The person has received a notable award or honor", and he is therefore not just a run of the mill presenter. 'Subject requests deletion' is not an automatic right, if nobody here expands on why he wants it deleted, then the request is secondary to the issue of notability. MickMacNee (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Award winning radio journalist satisfies notability criteria. I confirm MickMacNee's understanding: Sony Radio Awards are the top level awards for radio - they're a very big deal. His alleged privacy concerns have no bearing on the issue, not least since multiple other sources including his flickr page & BBC biog provide the same sort of info. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on both the previous - evidence that these awards do have such standing? It would be helpful for the record. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on Sony Radio Academy Awards does contain information about the awards notability. It needs to be referenced, but it's there.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a complete newcomer to these awards, are they notable enough that anyone winning one would usually be expected to have enough stature to have an article? FT2 (Talk | email) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead sentence in the article about the award does assert that the Sony Radio Academy Awards: "are some of the most prestigious awards in the British radio industry". As I mentioned in the above statement, that statement of fact along with a couple of others needs to be referenced, but I see no reason to not take it at face value. Just about everything in the current Sony Radio Academy Awards article could of course be a complete fabrication (I'm American myself, so I've never personally been exposed to this award before), but based on the fact that the article isn't brand new, there's no significant factual issues being discussed on it's talk page (indeed, there's nothing at all being discussed there, which is actually normally a good sign of stability and an at least tacit show of support for the content, from what I've seen), and the assertions of notability of the awards here by those who aparently have been personally exposed to it, I see no basis to be mistrustful.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has been completely rewritten and well-referenced since the subject's request. He clearly satisfies the notability criteria, and most of the subjects concerns have been addressed, as far as we can tell. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from not wanting an article at all! <g> Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of people who want to stop Wikipedia writing about them, just as there are plenty of people who want newspapers to stop writing about them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject passes the notability threshold. It might be an idea for a handful of editors to keep the page on their watchlist (I have done) to help prevent vandalism on the article. Hopefully this will help to assuage any doubts the subject has. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what a complete waste of people's time. This is the third AfD on this subject. If it carries on like this any more the guy will be more notable for having been nomintated for deletion three times (!). Look, he seems notable enough for people here to get quite worked up about it, let's just keep the guy and not nominate him again, as this is getting a bit monotonous. There's more to life, surely! Tris2000 (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject's desire to not have an article about themselves is irrelevant. The only thing that trumps verifiable and notable information is WP:BLP, and that does not appear to be an issue here. Shereth 15:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The individual is a willing public figure. Therfore, with all due respect to the subject, we should not delete this article. Courtesy deletions should not occur for willing public figures. The individual meets notability so we are more or less done here. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have access to read the OTRS ticket - is there any possibility that it could be posted publically? (If not, that's understandable). It's hard to decide whether to delete "on the basis of their request" alone, when we can't see that request. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it really matter what the OTRS ticket says? I'm not being flippant here, I'm really asking. It seems to me that if the OTRS ticket contained some piece of information relevant to the discussion that the OTRS recipients/Office would take care of the issue regardless (most likely with over-site tools). I'm wondering why is was important to mention the ticket at all (although I suspect that mentioning it is seen as a means to achieve some sort of legitimacy for creating the AFD in the first place).
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not. But without seeing it, I can't know if it's important or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct procedure on receiving an OTRS ticket from the subject requesting deletion is to open an AfD. this is the reason that the ticket is mentioned at all, as the grounds for the AfD Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So then, it's basically only mentioned to establish the fact that the AFD was due to the OTRS ticket being filed in the first place. That makes sense, thanks.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - because of the subject's request, and the lack of any strong reason to the contrary why we should keep the article despite (he's not Nicholas van Hoogstraten after all). Notability is a pre-condition of our ability to have an article, not a requirement that we must have one. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: has won a prestigious award, so notable. Keeping content is preferable to deleting in this circumstance. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From my reading he meets the notability guidelines so we should keep the article. This is the sort of article however where flagged protection should be put on as soon as it is available to hopefully prevent the disgraceful previous condition of the article from recurring. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A local radio speaker, IMO, fits the borderline "relatively unknown" criteria when his request must have decisive weight. NVO (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The provided sources support clearly the notabiliy Rirunmot (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We're quick to delete articles that are not notable, so therefore should we not be quick to protect articles that are notable? The subject's want to have this article is irrelevent, there is notability, that article is well written and this is an encyclopedia, I'm pretty sure that for any of our 3m+ articles you could find someone, somewhere that wants it deleted, but we're not going to go about and bow to their wishes are we? RaseaC (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; unquestionably notable. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - time to snowball keep? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in this case the debate should be allowed to run the full seven days. The effect of allowing the deletion could have serious ramefications across Wikipedia. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and allowing the subject of the article to get it deleted smacks of censorship. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still a large amount of disagreement over when courtesy deletions should be allowed. Given that, and given their extremely contentious nature it is a really bad idea to close discussions about them early regardless of the direction. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes the notability threshold. Any WP:BLP concerns can be dealt with in the article. Wikipedia is attempting to be a serious encyclopedia and that means focusing on the encyclopedic content irrespective of the subject and their desires. We do not let subjects write their own articles nor should we give them management over whether or not an article on them exist at all. AgneCheese/Wine 19:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going weak keep here. He seems notable, but Mr. Hawkins seems to not want an article about himself on Wikipedia. This looks like a job for the office to decide... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no top down authoritarian editorial board here. This lies in the hands of the community alone. This is why I brought it up, for what I believed was a marginal notability issue in addition to the subject's request. The Office, OTRS, or what have you, will not intervene here. If it is kept, it is kept. If deleted, same. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article clearly meets the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:BLP issues can be addressed as they arise. The references are decent (could use more non-BBC references) as well. The subject of this article has gone beyond minor notability and will need to deal with having an article. There are no valid reasons to delete it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any serious argument for deleting this other than "the subject wants it gone?". If not, then Keep, because he's not a borderline notability case, he clearly and unambiguously meets our notability criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Addendum: but I will note that long-term semiprotection is an entirely different kettle of fish, and should be seriously considered in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • Just wanted to add, the article was a mess before but now there doesn't seem like too much to complain about, and he is a public figure, so, Weak Keep. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I want to point out that this has been my main issue with deletion here all along. This is a bio article, and so BLP considerations are paramount and should be addressed ASAP. However, BLP issues do not give the article subject a right to request deletion (although deletion of the article may end up being a consequence of BLP problems, that's a different type of deletion). The fact is, whatever the real issue with an article is, it can always be edited. This is Wikipedia, after all! (I wouldn't actually be so quick to protect the article either, especially after this, but that's really a separate discussion.)
        — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - weak only on notability issue. There is no "right" not to have an article about oneself here, least of all with a self-publicizing character such as Hawkins. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have an established principle that in cases of BLP and marginal notability, we assign some weight to the subject's wishes. So I am discounting all arguments above which assert an automatic (or, as is put in some cases, unalienable) right to write about someone - it depends on notability. I have read the arguments above which claim his notability is significant but based on the information given, I disagree; I do feel it is only marginal (lots of people - including me for that matter - receive awards of some sort) and therefore the subject's wishes carry some weight. Given that we as a community, with our ongoing BLP problem that we cannot seem to solve, were rather shoddy at protecting his article from objectionable material, I'm inclined to liberally give *significant* weight rather than *some* weight in this instance. Martinp (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your position but we have the unalienable right to write on someone. We can, as a community, choose to waive or not this right. The fact that we weren't good in protecting his article from objectionable material is no ground for deletion: it means only that the article must be protected or semi-protected. We have the tools to deal with it without destroying an article, so why don't we use them instead of deleting. The only case in which considering the subject wishes is meaningful, in my opinion, is only when the mere existence of an article can be harmful. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as has already been argued. We report only what has been previously published, and those publishers have either not been contacted by the subject, or have ignored him. Why should we delete, just because he wants us to? He's known, and written about, whether he likes it or not. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see not policy based reason for deletion. This person is a public figure and the article seems to be based off of public information. Neutrality should prevent us from letting the subject of the article make decisions like this. I just read otrs:3648175 and I see nothing there to change my mind, inaccurate or unverified content should be kept out of the article. Chillum 14:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum, is the OTRS stuff private, or could it be republished here so we can all see what is said? Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is private by the nature of it being OTRS. I really cannot repeat e-mails that were never meant to be published. It basically amounts to him having concerns about both accuracy issues and the level of attention being received. I think with some vigilance the accuracy issues can be resolved, and much of it is resolved already. The person is aware of this debate and can comment here if he so chooses. Chillum 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for that. If it needs to remain private it shall do so. I take it that by "level of attention" he meant the various IP editors adding unreferenced info. Semi-protection expires later this evening. If IP editors repeat their previous activities the article should be semi-protected for some time to come. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Chillum 18:51, 12 September 2009 (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/Jim_Hawkins_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137950241"