Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bascombe (3rd nomination)

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 delete. ✗plicit 02:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bascombe[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Two AFD discussions ended in no consensus about a decade ago. Still and all, the subject seems primarily notable for a 15-year-old controversy that was essentially a flash in the pan. Clearly time for another look. Seems to lack significant coverage other than for the newspaper incidents. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 00:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Sports, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this page and would please ask for it to be deleted. The page condenses my life to a narrow period and focuses disproportionately on one contentious moment 15 years ago. It does not exist as an accurate biography. It lacks far too many details to qualify it as a biography. No-one has ever researched my age, my place of birth, my family members or any other details that would reasonably merit its existence as a fair and balanced biography. Did the person who created this page really do so to create a biography of a ‘notable’ individual? They obviously did not. The creation of this page was for malicious purposes - the page’s early history confirms that - which contravenes wiki policies. It was subsequently edited so it could remain & exist in its current form. There is no reasonable reason why it should not be deleted given how much information it lacks and how outdated it is.

More seriously, it creates the impression I am some kind controversial figure. This is wholly inaccurate, unfair and damaging. Again, please consider if this truly qualifies as a biography of a notable individual, and please ask yourself why no-one has sought to update it for so long. It has not been edited at all for a year, and there has been no material change for much longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbasc (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: given the link to Hillsborough in the article, I'm adding it to the deletion sorting for Football. Nfitz (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have the broad sourcing to show that this person is truly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ I am still going with weak keep, he writes plenty of articles with The Daily Telegraph, his association with Liverpool FC that in turn has his named mentioned by other sources is a clear indication that this should pass GNG. [1], [2]. There is room for improvement. Govvy (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blank the slate It seems the subject of the article would like the article deleted. Although I feel the Chris Bascombe is notable, I have nothing against deleting the article to be maybe started again. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the subject of the article can have it both ways. If the article can be fixed in a manner that is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, then it should be kept and fixed. If it's deleted because the subject wants it to be deleted, then recreating into a more suitable version that subject might be more likely to agree to seems like gaming and shouldn't be allowed. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is a courtesy offered to subjects who find having an article written about them on Wikipedia is causing them real world difficulties; it's a way to "edit" articles into something that the subject prefers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources presented by Govvy and at first AFD. GNG is met. Giant Snowman 22:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to understand the motivation behind the arguments to keep and would please ask for reconsideration. It was first suggested in 2012 this page needed ‘improvement not deletion’. You can see plainly there has been no attempt to improve in the ten years since - not a single additional source in ten years or any attempt to create a fuller biography. If the notability criteria is based on being a football journalist and ghostwriter of a book, why is this part of the biography so disproportionately lacking in sources and detail? Is every journalist considered ‘notable’ based on their subject matter? There are 187 words on this page, of which 97 are focused on the moment when a local reporter left a job for a national newspaper. The sources cited referencing the move are from a journalism industry website and a specialist media journalist whose main focus was anecdotes from the media industry. It was not a ‘news’ story yet here it makes up 52 per cent of the ‘biography’. I have to ask again, did the person who created the page claim notability on the basis of a journalism career, or wish to create notability on the grounds of a journalist leaving a job? I think that is question at the heart of this. I do not believe anyone can credibly argue this page exists as a biography of a notable person. It is a page which was first set-up in an attempt to create some kind of notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbasc (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could I just add here, that I would welcome any users who still wish to keep the page to email/contact me & perhaps give me the chance to explain in as much detail possible & necessary (not so publicly) further personal reasons why I think it is right, fair & proper this page is deleted. I am sure you can all empathise with how stressful (and surreal) it can be having the merits of one’s own ‘biography’ discussed online.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbasc (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisbasc: I sent you a message on twitter, if it is really you, you should respond on twitter. If it's not, it's dangerous to impersonate someone and the account will most likely be banned. Govvy (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you it is me. I keep twitter notifications off except for those I follow, so only just seen yours. I 'liked' your tweet.

I am sorry if my request is becoming repetitive, but some of the reasons cited for 'notability' are not actually reflected in the construction of the page. It actually feels the discussion pages for deletion are more thoroughly researched than the page itself!! I can only repeat that in the absence of the improvement which ensured it remained in 2012 and 2013, it should be deleted. And I am more than happy to discuss further privately. Chrisbasc (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and just to confirm, if you allow me to DM you on Twitter I can verify (i just followed you). Not especially keen to broaden public discussion on Twitter. It's unsettling enough do it on here!! Chrisbasc (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you'd say you're not notable, I know who you are! I've read your articles for years. You're at the same level as Henry Winter in my opinion. If you want to get rid of your article you might have to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE as I am not sure how it works. But to me, you should just leave it be, it's not the best article, but it does enhance your notability. Also, there is no harm in you improving the article as long as you declare your WP:COI with it. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why there is any eagerness to keep it! I am certainly not as notable as Henry Winter!!! But if that was the case, there would be a more thorough, biographical tone to it. When you say 'it's not the best article' (putting it mildly) that cuts to the chase of the problem. It is so flawed (and actually inaccurate because I was at the Liverpool Echo for ten years!!) that even the sources cited have issues. Is 'enhancing notability' the purpose of wikipedia, or does notability have to be established to justify the biography (which we can see is not really a biography at all) ?? I keep saying I would like to discuss in private and yet no-one wants to. Very frustrating because there are points to be made which I hope would help users see my perspective which it is unfair to expect me to make on a public forum. Chrisbasc (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic Comment - I'm suddenly seeing why we end up with paid editors to fix stuff - when it's clear it won't fix itself, in many cases. Nfitz (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks notability as currently presented. Gusfriend (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team is the correct process to verify that the user is the person mentioned in the article. If account is verified as the person, then and only then, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies, and so it should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: User:Chrisbasc has had their identity verified as Chris Bascombe via the VRT. Full documentation is available to trusted volunteers at VRTS ticket # 2022030410010274. ––FormalDude talk 05:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, then delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which overrides his possible marginal notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page kind of has meh sourcing, and the page itself is kind of meh, and the subject itself says they want deletion. I can really see this going either way. casualdejekyll 12:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was created as an attack page. There have been some improvements in the subsequent 14 years; but it still doesn't meet the standards of a BLP. Notability is doubtful. And I respect the civilised way the subject has asked for deletion. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources currently in the article that are arguably of WP:GNG quality are those related to him joining NotW. That falls squarely under WP:BIO1E, and for an event that is not all that eventful either. (If someone can exhibit a source of GNG quality which does not deal primarily with NotW I will reconsider.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stands on-wiki, they are marginally notable and so deference to their wishes should be granted. And consideration should be given to removing the so-called controversy regardless of the result of this discussionSlywriter (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need for an article, and its subject has been extraordinarily patient and courteous about the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. ––FormalDude talk 03:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joseph2302 above. If the subject wants to email Wikimedia VRT, have their identity verified, and then request that the article be deleted, then it seems that their wish should be granted. However, this doesn't mean the that subject can then try and have the article recreated into something more up-to-date or more to their liking. If the subject only wants to challenge some of the content currently in the article, then there are ways to do so given in WP:BIOSELF and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Avilich (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2022 (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.