Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Hall-Smith (2nd 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 keep as there is consensus here that the topic passes the notability threshold, and the argument that we ought to tear pages out of the encyclopaedia on the whim of the subject is in this case unconvincing. Skomorokh 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Hall-Smith[edit]

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

On the day the previous nomination was closed as "withdrawn by nominator", title subject requested deletion at [email protected] (copy in my mailbox). The case, in my opinion, fits the "relatively unknown, non-public figure, where the subject has requested deletion AND there is no rough consensus" clause of deletion policy (last AFD was closed at 1 del, 2 keep, 1 undecided leaning to delete) - the article should be deleted, AFDs blanked. NVO (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator). NVO (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject's wish is not to be ignored lightly but someone with such broad coverage in multiple reliable sources and even an articles in The Times is not someone who can be described as a "non-public" figure. Non-public figures don't go around in public or give interviews, do they? Regards So Why 10:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per SoWhy. I must say this new policy of subject's wish to be accounted in AfD debates makes me cry. Regardless, sources indicate she's a public figure and unless the mere existence of the article is firmly proved to be harmful to the subject, there's no ground to delete it. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicted keep as my sympathies tend to lie with a semi-notable person who is understandably reluctant to risk having a lightly-watched article vandalized, and Googled across the net. Still, SoWhy is correct, she comfortably meets our inclusion guidelines, and the sources actually provide enough information for a viable article. I hope the other people who opine "keep" will join me in adding this article to their watchlists, and try to patrol it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, added to watchlist. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep surely the MBE meets The person has received a notable award or honor. Lame Name (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in a change from my !vote at the earlier AfD. I feel that the subject's wishes are important and should prevail in this case. I feel that article subjects should generally have their requests for deletion honoured unless they are so notable that they would have an article in a paper encyclopaedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there are policies saying that the admin closing the AfD can take into account the subject's will. However I point that no public subject could reasonably stop a magazine, say, doing a biographic article based on public, verifiable, non-harmful and non-libelous sources. I don't see why instead they can do that on Wikipedia (where, by the way, the subjects can have far more control on what's written and what not about them). The subject's will should be of interest if and only if there are reasonable concerns that the mere existence of the article is somehow harmful. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable as she is an MBE. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. The subject has been the subject of stories in reliable sources, to be sure; but the Times story is what we'd call a "lifestyle feature" story here, not about a specific achievement, and it dates to 2004. I don't mean to belittle the MBE either, but our article observes that the Order is the most junior of the British orders of chivalry, and the largest, with over 100,000 living members worldwide. Being conferred its most junior rank may not confer automatic notability, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MBE alone is not notability; the Times alone neither, neither is her leading a world-renowned institute. All of these together however make a strong case for notability. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual references probably would support a case for notability, but they are weak. You have:

an article about the Institute, in Italian;
the lifestyle story;
a self-published article about her college band;
a listing in a notice of Law Society members who've changed positions;
another article about the Institute, in English;
a reference as an authority about advertising law;
an article she published about advertising law; and
her entry in MBE awards list.

Technically, she's the primary subject of only one of these articles. I think that while she is notable, that notability is weak, and the living person policy, though an exception to general rules that should be strictly construed, applies in this case. If she doesn't want a Wikipedia article, she's no more of a well known public figure than any other academic, not really notable enough to oust its application. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind that WP:BLP makes no direct mention of this, and that what you suggest has been rejected. Current guideline states that The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion., so we are in the admins' hands. Since you agree that there is notability, I would say that, for an honest AfD discussion, it should be disclosed at least why the subject requested deletion, so that the community (and the intervening admin) can ponder how meaningful is the request. The deletion proposer went as far as asking for courtesy blanking of AfDs, which makes me wonder what's going on. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't wonder what's going on. Please assume the nominator is politely requesting that the subject's wishes be respected and her material removed from Wikipedia.

My position is that the reason for the subject's request is not germane and need not be considered. All we need to decide is whether courtesy obliges us to comply, and my position is that it does. I think we need much stronger reasons to retain an article that's making its subject unhappy than have been presented here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming good faith on the nominator, but I wonder why the subject wants the article removed, to the point of blanking discussion. To know that would help us discuss the matter. That's why I ask for at least some disclosure. That said, even if I'm sure the nomination is in good faith, I find it difficult to trust nominations and decisions based on concealed information. That said, why should we not retain an article even if the subject is unhappy? One thing is not doing harm, another is bending over to any arbitrary request to delete information on oneself the site. The article is not (apparently) doing any harm, it is referenced, it has not the slightest trace of libel potential whatsoever. It just reports factual information available elsewhere. To accept it to be deleted only by the subject request makes no sense. No free book, journal or website would accept such a request: why should we? But of course I am willing to change my mind if the request contains grounds for which the existence of the article is harmful, that's why I ask a disclosure. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable, so we have no basis for removing the article. The (in my opinion disastrously anti-NPOV) policy of paying respect to the subjects wishes only applies in borderline cases, and Director of the British Institute of Florence and a public career reported in reliable sources is not borderline. We're an encyclopedia, not a place where the subjects choose whether or not they want to be written about based on mere preference. In some previous similar cases the reason seems to have been a sense of anger at the previous AfD, "someone there dares to suggest I may not be notable--rather than be subject to your discussion, remove all mention of me" . A firm policy that we never do this would be the best way of replying, and would advance our reputation for objectivity. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of notability. It's a matter of being relatively unknown. Everyone has their own threshold, whether it's relative to Angela Merkel or Joan Airoldi. NVO (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is this: Is WP:NPF a reason for deletion? The policy clearly states that such articles about notable subjects can exist and rather only specifies that more caution is to be used when dealing with those articles. There is nothing in WP:NPF that says that this is a reason for deletion, is there? Regards So Why 08:22, 3 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.