Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Critchlow

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Critchlow

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

Subject wishes to opt-out (see [1]). Sending to AFD for evaluation. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question What does this actually mean? (The link asks me for a login I don't seem to have.) Do you mean the subject wishes to have the article on him deleted? Is that a valid reason for deletion? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the subject does not want Wikipedia to host this article on them. That rationale has not been accepted by the community as a rationale for deletion by itself, but it is something that the closing administrator is allowed to take into account per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Biographies of living people. NW (Talk) 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I, for one, can't even see the "ticket" of complaint. Has anyone verified by phone or postal mail the identity of the complaintant? Why should the article be deleted? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Also. This doesn't make sense. I agree with the above commentator User:Sergeant Cribb. Why is the Keith Critchlow article being considered for deletion? It's not an orphan, and Dr. Critchlow is a significant person. What does the verbiage you wrote mean?

"User wishes to opt-out per [1] ( https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=5619173 ). Sending to AFD for evaluation. NW (Talk) 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)"

What does this have to do with "OTRS" (Open-source Ticket Request System? We can't see the ticket anyway. Also, what does "user wishes to opt out ..." mean as the reason for deletion? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to close this as a WP:SNOW keep. Subject is clearly notable, I accept the faint possibility that there may be a need to redact something for the safety of the subject, but that would be a matter for the oversight team/OTRS team/OfficeW/WMF, not for AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I was thinking that it was getting a little snowy as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Users may have a right to vanish, but notable subjects do not have the right to "opt out" of being covered in Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per rationale above by User:SchuminWeb. I never saw the original complaint "ticket" since I can't. So I don't know what the objection was. Everything in the article is factual and all was publicly known. Cf. his entry in Debrett's People of Today published in England. The Wikipedia article has about the same information. Critchlow is a significant public figure. If's there's a compelling reason above what I can know, since I can't see the original complaint ticket, I have to leave that to those with privileges to decide that. But on the face of it, I see no reason to delete the article short of a courtesy to the complaintant. Puzzled. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject appears to be a notable architect. Google Books suggests that he is prominent in his profession. Bringing an article to AfD based on an OTRS ticket is rarely a good idea -- it effectively says, "This article should be deleted for reasons that I can't tell you." Well, if the community can't be told the reasons, why should it be a matter for community decision? If the problem is that serious, take it to the Wikimedia office for them to delete, rather than taking it to AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Critchlow has notability in the fields of Islamic Art, Symbology and Sacred Architecture. See Google Books for a listing of his academic writings. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no valid reason has been advanced for deletion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others. Sorry, Prof Critchlow, you're just too notable. Douglasi (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2011 (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.