Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashif Siddiqi

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' Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Siddiqi

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

This individual is notable - he meets WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG - but he has requested (via e-mails to myself) that we delete the article as he is worried about vandalism, as well as other concerns from his family. I posted at WP:BLPN and got no real help, and tried at WP:RPP to protect the article so that only registered users could edit as a compromise, but that request was declined. I informed him of this and he came back to me saying that he wants it deleted, so I'm putting it up here. I'd also ask that after deletion (if it happens) this page and redirects are SALTed to prevent further creation by well-meaning editors.Giant Snowman 09:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per WP:NOTCENSORED. If we start removing information on notable individuals at their whim, where does it end? Do we delete any negative information about a living person because they want it deleted, even if it has been amply reported elsewhere? Deleting this would set the dangerous precedent that article subjects own their articles - they do not; if the information is available in reliable sources, it should be available on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well - I think the article should remain (I mean, it's not even negative in the slightest!) but he's now mentioned lawyers, and I didn't know where else to turn seeing as the noticeboard was no help. Giant Snowman 09:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure he wouldn't have a leg to stand on legally - every single sentence in the article is reliably referenced, so we aren't publishing anything which hasn't already been release into the public domain. Per WP:DOLT: If you aren't sure what to do with a legal threat, email the legal queue on OTRS, at info-enwikimedia.org where specially authorized users and staff can assess the situation. That might be your best avenue. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll give that a shot. Giant Snowman 10:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Yunshui. If it really is the author's request (like how Scott Voyles was deleted) then PROD it. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate" - obviously not the correct way to go about this. Giant Snowman 14:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; speedy close. I hate to sound like a broken record but wikipedia is not censored, and we don't want to set a dangerous precedent of deletion at the subject's request. This is exactly why the Italian wikipedia was threatened with complete closure – a proposed new law in Italy which would have obligated any publisher to retract information regarding any living subject at the subject's request, regardless of truth. Since the nomination statement actually admits the subject is notable, I don't see what further discussion can achieve here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep possible. Article is adequately referenced, in a good state, and passes WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. There is no reason to delete it. – Kosm1 fent 17:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is clearly notable. Other considerations are not relevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: Can't fathom any plausible reason to delete this. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a justification. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 13 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.