Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ken Arromdee (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 22 March 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:28, 22 March 2012 by Ken Arromdee (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
AfDs for this article:
Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Afternoon Radio presenter of limited note - The subject is clearly very very upset about the articles existence and has been complaining for quite some time now, he is posting about it on twitter and has posted one I read in which he comments how our articles existence has detrimentally affected his health - ( I won't post diffs here but they are available at the WP:BLPN thread.) - imo and for the benefit of the subject and the very limited loss the biography would be to the projects mission - we can and should delete this article. - Youreallycan 21:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Neutral - The article is compliant to WP:BLP. Subject has been a presenter on a BBC Radio 4 programme (i.e. a national station, not merely a local station), and has won a major award. Notability, once attained, does not diminish. This is a control issue more than anything. Because the subject of the article cannot control what is in it, he wants it deleted. Misplaced Pages does not allow subject of articles to say whether or not they get an article (q.v. Sally Boazman). The subject does not want his actual d.o.b. in the article, despite the fact that he freely gives this info out every year when his birthday comes round. Misplaced Pages has granted him this concession, and his d.o.b. is not mentioned, only the year. I appreciate that one editor in particular wants this info in the article, but I'd advise that editor to drop the WP:STICK over this issue. Mjroots (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Its more than his dob he's complaining about on his radio show and on twitter , its cyber-bullying and the articles continuing existence. Youreallycan 22:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I find vague handwaves at "cyberbullying" to be unconvincing. Can you provide details as to what precisely means by this? If all it is is "the article exists therefore I feel bullied", that's kinda pathetic, honestly. Tarc (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Check the article talk page and archives. There has been systematic harassment on this. Listen to yesterday's broadcast, where he talks about his experiences and his perception of being bullied by Misplaced Pages. The distress is obvious. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Say that you have an agreement that your DOB won't be added to an article, perhaps because you've suffered from identity theft in the past, or whatever reason. Suppose now that another person decides that regardless of any agreement the DOB will be added to the article, someone that knows the wikipedia game with 80,000 edits, knows that if they can get it to stick once they'll have won, and every few months or so visits the article and adds the DOB. Suppose that goes on year, after year, after year. What would you call that? John lilburne (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
If we're talking about Pigsonthewing, he's nobody, and will never get his way with this article. I'm not overly concerned about keeping, and if he's a marginal person who requests deletion I'm fine with that. But Pigs here could just as easily be topic-banned form the article to solve that angle of the matter. Tarc (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Its been going on for the last three years and no one has dealt with it. Then there are the other random drive-by nonsense. John lilburne (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Really? Thank you for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's a summary of the problems with this article. The article was created in 2006. In 2006, Jimbo courtesy blanked the talkpage over discussions of his birth date and real name . In September 2009, shortly after the subject had had a attempt to correct information in the article and was affected by an semi-edit protection , unsourced information about his "real name" and "date of birth" was added.. An IP claiming to be close to the subject deleted this information again saying "Subject wants personal information removed. DOB and Real Name specifically. Subject would like this page to be removed, but if that won't happen then this will do". Instead of respecting this and despite the WP:BLPpolicy, editors have nevertheless repeatedly tried to include this specific information. User:Pigsonthewing added a birth date deduced on a Twitter comment relating his birthday to the Lenten calendar . This was removed following an OTRS complaint from the subject.. A modified version was restored by Pigsonthewing as a "cited fact - as posted by Hawkins himself" and subsequently removed, restored and removed again by various editors. In March 2010, Pigsonthewing readded the date of birth information based on some further Twittered greetings., which I then removed per a discussion on the reliable sources NB and on the talkpage.. Pigsonthewing once again readded the information and I deleted again per consensus in both places.. Instead of dropping it, Pigsonthewing tried again to get consensus on the talkpage of including the same information, specifically forbidden per BLP and using the same sort of Twitter sources in 2011 and 2012 . And gets the same reaction from the subject and other editors every single time. I'm sorry to say that Mjroots, who has voted Keep above, has, in my opinion, enabled Pigsonthewing at various times. I was particularly shocked when he suggested in 2010 using a Freedom of information Act request to get hold of Hawkins' exact date of birth via the BBC.. Happily, Pigsonthewing advised again this and there is no sign that this idea was acted on. Also happily my personal observations have been that in the last little while, Mjroots has not supported Pigsonthewing's actions, and in fact has cautioned him directly about of his activities.
All this to say, yes, given this, and further very edits to the talkpage (added, deleted, restored and just recently deleted again) about Hawkins' "real name" I can see that edits related to this article could easily be described as cyberstalking.--Slp1 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd call it stalking, but it's certainly badgering with no particular encyclopedic purpose. It's pretty clear that Pigsonthewing at least is using the article as a means to bother Hawkins rather than improve the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This works both ways you know, JH has used his twitter page and his radio show to encourage vandalism of Misplaced Pages, and specifically his article. I raised this with the BBC by e-mail, with the result that they declined to take any action. That said, and in the light of comments added overnight, I'm withdrawing my !vote to enable a WP:SNOWDELETE should an admin think this an appropriate course of action. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Then deal with Pigsonthewing. Malleus Fatuorum 06:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to unilaterally rush in and impose sanction on PoTW. For one, I could be seen as involved here, and secondly, this is something that would probably be better dealt with by uninvolved members of the community. If any editor believes that PoTW's conduct in relation to JH merits close examination, then there are venues to raise it. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see how an article on Hawkins meets Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) guidelines. The article is sourced almost entirely from the BBC - his employer - and other primary sources. And with all due respect to the people of Shropshire, I fail to see why an article about one of their radio presenters is either necessary, or even educational. It is little more than a stub/resumé, in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. As the original (anonymous) creator of the article, I saw Jim's inclusion as a recognition of his genuinely strong presence in and involvement in the Shropshire community. He is an iconic and well-loved figure. However, I am appalled to learn of the continuous harassment he has suffered at the hands of a few persistent editors, and I think that it would best to remove this vehicle for what Jim perceives as online bullying. We have badly fumbled the ball on this, even after Jimbo himself felt moved to intervene. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per Youreallycan. If a subject requests deletion, and his notability is anywhere near borderline, we should agree, particularly when its existence has caused him distress. SlimVirgin 22:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    How can the mere existence of an article cause anyone stress? Malleus Fatuorum 06:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per Youreallycan and Andy (edit: and SlimVirgin too). The history of the article is one big mess, and notability is borderline at best.VolunteerMarek 23:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I wrote the following for the first deletion debate on this in 2006(!): "Although I feel the subject is notable enough for an article, I think we should respect subject's wishes not to have an article if they're borderline cases. I'm not going to cite policies or laws on this--it's simple courtesy." My feelings on the matter have not changed, and the community really deserves a bit of shame for keeping this for SIX MORE YEARS when it was clearly causing him unneeded grief. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. Enough is enough. JN466 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Likely non-notable anyways, subject request tips it to delete. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete The reliable, independent sources about this person are very limited given that he works for the BBC, and these form the bulk of references for these articles. There are some other sources but these are local newspapers or other non-independent sources, such as organizations that have hired him for various projects. In addition, when the subject of a BLP article of marginal notability per our guidelines objects to its inclusion here, then we should pay attention to the subject's wishes. --Slp1 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, essentially per Starblind. I disagree with those saying Mr. Hawkins does not meet our general notability guidelines; I believe he does, from the coverage already in the article. However, there's a difference between meeting our notability guidelines (repeat: guidelines) and being so notable that an encyclopedia would be damaged by not having an article (e.g. Neil Armstrong or Rosa Parks), and that being the case, I think we ought to respect his wishes not to have an article, out of consideration for the obvious anguish this is causing him. 28bytes (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, although not necessarily in the article's current form. It is not for the subjects of BLP's to decide whether or not they meet the notability guidelines, and if we are to make exceptions in this case then we should do so across across the board. Re-work the notablity guidelines if you like, but in the meantime don't pander to cyber-bullying aided and abetted by the BBC. Malleus Fatuorum 06:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and most of the comments above. Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    I recall a rather similar discussion about Katie Price's article, which at one time mentioned her conviction for shoplifting (maybe it still does, haven't looked), after she requested that it be removed. Misplaced Pages has either to tough up on BLPs or remove them altogether; it's completely unacceptable for the subjects to dictate the content. Malleus Fatuorum 07:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per Carcharoth. Ripberger (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom and other comments above. I've felt for a long time that with borderline-notable people, a flexible approach to "opt-out" is a good thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, per King Canute. The subject is asserting on his Facebook page that there are numerous mistakes, but won't say what they are and wants the whole page deleted. But his wishes on inclusion don't come into it (as they would not if he were non-notable and agitating for an article to be included.) He meets the criteria at WP:BIO though clearly he's not an international household name. HOWEVER, this whole situation has been made worse (possible started in the first place) by the terribly bad behaviour and persistent WP:IDHT campaign of Pigsonthewing agitating to get a precise birthdate in. Had he not insisted on this one-pig crusade we might never have got here. Kim Dent-Brown 08:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • keep BLP is not a sledgehammer to silence opposition. I can't see anything in that article that violates BLP or would even "harass" the subject. There doesn't seem to be a single negative word about him in there. We certainly don't let our subjects dictate how we cover them. What kind of an encyclopedia would we be building then?--Crossmr (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - he seems notable enough to me. He states that the article contains errors, but he's unwilling to identify those errors. His opinion, therefore, is irrelevant - we should not, ever, pander to the personal preferences of BLP subjects. Parrot of Doom 08:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Being a BBC radio presenter is not sufficient for WP:N, and the refs in the article (and lack of sources mentioned here) do not show notability (they show he hosts a radio program and uses Twitter). Receiving some minor award, and being commended and shortlisted, do not amount to notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The award included is sufficient to meet Entertainers or Any biography. Note for closing admin - I see a significant number of contributors expressing opinions to delete who have been directly involved in canvassing off-wiki. They should hang their heads in shame. I can provide evidence off-line for any uninvolved administrator who cannot find this for themselves. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
And an hour ago I was thinking that maybe you'd understood something. John lilburne (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyone checking your contribution history of pursuing dramah can judge why I'd opt for DENY here. --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No personal squabbles and grudges here, please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Treat this as an act of kindness: You need to learn to break the ties that bind you, else voices off stage will continue to manipulate you into espousing wrong headed opinions. John lilburne (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kim Dent-Brown and PoD. Notability is non-negotiable, and deleting biographies at the subject's request is neither policy nor indicated on any other grounds. Notability being established, the article seems well-referenced and uncontroversial in nature, so why would we delete it? --John (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep If the guy really didn't want to be notable (article created in 2005?!), perhaps he shouldn't have a website devoted to himself and his career, nor should he identify his Tweets with a BBC logo pasted over his face. Doc talk 10:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)See, now that is exactly the sort of thoughtless comment that can cause upset for BLP subjects - at least recall that this is a real person, likely reading this discussion. Jeez. --Errant 10:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You may see it as "thoughtless", but I did actually think about it before I typed. Nothing I've said above could "upset" them by pointing out their notability. If you think I was "attacking" him... Jeez yerself ;P Doc talk 11:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • We don't have articles on everyone who has a website, and we don't have articles on all radio presenters. In response to the concern about canvassing, it is far more likely that people are being drawn here by the mentions of this AfD at WP:AN and WP:BLP/N. I saw this article mentioned at both venues, and it was while I was posting at WP:BLP/N about another matter that I saw the AfD mentioned there. Unless Fae goes into details, it will be difficult to judge what the relative effects are of this and the off-wiki mentions he seems to be referring to. Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable. This AfD reminds me somewhat of the Giovanni di Stefano AfD in which a public figure requested their article be removed because they didn't like its content, even though it was very well referenced to material already in the public domain. As long as this article is properly sourced to reliable sources (and the current version of the article looks that way), then I can't see a reason for deleting. If there is stuff in the edit history that violates WP:BLP, it can be selectively deleted. Number 57 10:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The principle of "do no harm" applies. Is including things like his birthdate doing harm when he advertises it himself? NO. Is the existence of an article doing harm? NO, because he has a website, etc that promotes his exploits. Does it appear to be that his sole anger is because he cannot control the contents of an INDEPENDENT encyclopedia? Yes. His complaints about dob, etc are mere red herrings, which he's using as personal fodder against the institution of Misplaced Pages. Somewhere we need to add "control freak" to his article, and it's apparently well-sourced (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • And throwing phrases around like "control freak" is your way of keeping to the 'do no harm' principle? You had almost persuaded me up until that point, when I realised you seem to be using this discussion to make some sort of point. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Struck. I perhaps don't see that phrase with the same negative connotation as you apparently do - I'm one myself at times, and admit it freely. With the potential that others have the same negative view of the phrase, I'll happily retract (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I'll just correct a few things, Bwilkins. Hawkins hasn't advertised his birthdate at all, unless you count such things as responding "Thank you" to birthday greetings on the very ephemeral Twitter "advertising". I've kept a close eye on this article for the last couple of years, and the subject hasn't attempted to control the contents except to object with understandable frustration to repeated attempts of Pigsonthewing to insert a date of birth based on poor quality sources and against the BLP policy which specifically states that the full date of birth should not be included if the subject objects.See WP:BLPPRIVACY.--Slp1 (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject is clearly notable; and his history of trying to get the article deleted and Misplaced Pages vandalised is well docuemnted. As for the subjects DoB I have provided evidence that he regularly publicises this on his high-profile (4418 followers at time of writing; linked to from his BBC profile), unprotected Twitter account. 11:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I note that the subject's major concern is not the information in the article per se, but rather the bullying behaviour associated with inserting certain information with no reliable source, such as birthdate and name. The suggestion that birth records be accessed to provide a reliable source is monstrous. If the result is to keep the article, I would like to see a topic ban on those editors, such as this one, who have been harassing the subject. We are here to provide useful information, but our article is not more important than the subject. --Pete (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep – subject is clearly notable and seems intent on becoming more so (by fomenting debates of global import such as this one). Oculi (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The Sony Award grants notability via WP:ANYBIO, and the sourcing is sufficient for WP:GNG, so there's no grounds for deletion under notability. Nothing in the current article that I can see violates WP:BLP - it's neutral in tone, verifiable and contains no original research - so deleting on the request of the subject is not appropriate. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable per lots of people above, but particularly Yunshui. I've even heard of him, and I only listen to Radio 4 for TMS. We don't delete articles of notable people because the subject doesn't like them. If the subject objects to errors in the article, there are a number of different ways to have them addressed, as many of our article subjects do on a day by day basis. Mr Hawkins would do well to read this article asap. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have plenty of coverage from reliable sources (even besides the BBC) on this article, and it's not been edited since the AFD started, so I can't understand the "delete as non-notable" comments. Let me remind you of WP:SELFPUB, which permits minimal use of self-published sources when the information added is solely about the author of the source. If Mr Hawkins has published his own birth date in his own Twitter feed, policy says that the feed is acceptable to use as a source. Mr Hawkins should understand that he shouldn't publish his birth date in his Twitter feed if he doesn't want it to be known. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • See above, but in short the adequacy of Twitter that was not the consensus at the RSN or on the talkpage, and in any case per WP:BLPPRIVACY, BLP subjects have the right to the non-inclusion of the full date of birth per identity theft concerns. --Slp1 (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If they subsequently publish their DoB themselves after having asked us for a privacy-based removal, then there is certainly reason to discuss the issue, but it should not be added to any page on Misplaced Pages without explicit consensus to override their explicitly stated wishes. In this case there is currently no such consensus. There may be issues of prominence - Misplaced Pages is one of the highest profile websites there is, and publishing it somewhere you have to look for their profile does not necessarily indicate that they're happy with it being prominent in the first place many (most?) people will look first to find out info about someone they don't know. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Further comment - I said above that we don't have articles on all radio presenters, but we do have rather a lot. I looked at just Category:British radio presenters and there are 116 there (looking only at the main category). Most of those are living people. I did note down those who are no longer living (i.e. dead), as it rather proves the point that the right point to assess someone's notability and write a definitive article about them is at that point (or sometimes when they retire). Any BLP is only a work in progress until that point is reached. I'd also take issue with Mjroot's assertion that "Notability, once attained, does not diminish." That might seem true, but what is being assessed is not the subject's true notability, but a fluctuating 'notability during lifetime' that can wax and wane over time, with the true level of notability not being established until someone's career or life is over. Some people gain awards and recognitions and have long and diverse careers and have glowing obituaries written about them, and pass into the history of the field they worked in. Others have more pedestrian careers.

    The point is that it is rarely possible to make an accurate assessment until the right point is reached. What you end up with if you have low standards for allowing articles on BLPs is a huge number of borderline BLPs all across Misplaced Pages (heavily weighted towards contemporary coverage - where is the coverage of the previous generation of radio presenters?), the vast majority of the subjects of which will not have prominent (or any) obituaries published about them, and in 50 years time or so the articles will look a bit silly, cobbled together from various scraps and items published during the subject's lifetime, but with no proper, independent assessment of their place in history.

    It has been said before, but that is why specialist biographical dictionaries often have as one of their inclusion criteria that someone has to be dead before having an article. I'm not saying we should go that far, but there is a case for many BLPs of saying 'if there is no current published biography, wait until this career/life is over and make an assessment at that point', and until then either delete or have a bland stub.

    Anyway, the 9 radio presenters from that category I looked at that had obituaries (omitting a few that were famous for other things as well) were: Vernon Corea, John Fitzsimmons, Charlie Gillett, Alan Keith, Alexis Korner, Dennis McCarthy, Tushar Makwana, Spangles Muldoon, Glyn Worsnip. For what that is worth, compare these articles to the articles on living people from the same category. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth. I'm struggling to understand what the point is that you're making. Are you saying that articles on notable people, which we can't develop very well should be deleted? If so, you'll have great fun with the piles of two line articles we have on 18th century cricketers, many of whom we don't even know the full names of. --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that notability shouldn't be assessed with any finality until a life or career is over, and that the existence or otherwise of published obituaries and biographies should factor heavily in any decision. The scanty 18th-century cricketing 'biographical' information is really stuff more suited to lists, footnotes and appendices than stand-alone articles (a good rule of thumb is knowing someone's birth and death years and name, if those are missing, then you need good sources and good reasons to support a standalone article, regardless of any subject-specific notability guidelines). Carcharoth (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
That's a different interpretation of notability than that which the community has. You may be right, that that's the way to go, but you'd need to raise it at WP:N and gain consensus there, not on an individual AfD. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - bog-standard on-air personality biography; no cogent argument has been made for deletion, outside of reports that the subject whinges vaguely about not liking the article (but refuses to be specific). Has anybody ever gotten a clear statement of what his complaint is about the article, other than that (like everybody else's) it's subject to edits by somebody besides himself? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I do personally think that if a person's notability is seriously debated then a request from the subject that the page be deleted should tip the balance towards deletion. In this case though if the article had been nominated for deletion on notability grounds without a request from the subject that the page be deleted I think it would have been a straightforward Keep. If individual editors persist in adding material that doesn't comply with WP:BLP (and adding the subject's date of birth over the subject's objections is very, very wrong) then topic bans or other sanctions can be imposed. Likewise if the subject wants to complain about the factual accuracy of any of the material within the article there are mechanisms for him to do that. Hut 8.5 13:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability seems clear in that he is a national radio presenter and recipient of a major award (and nominated for at least two others). The article is reliably sourced at present, and if there are any errors they can be fixed by normal editing and reference to reliable sources in the usual way rather than deletion. Not having the exact date of birth doesn't harm the article, and as far as I can tell is unrelated to the reason for his notability, so the best way to deal with the issue would seem to be to topic ban the editor(s) who insist on repeatedly bringing it up. Adding a notice about the issue to the top of the talk page (explaining that the subject has requested we don't include the day or month, and linking to the relevant section of the BLP and/or privacy policy) would seem a good idea too. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • KeepDelete (I stand corrected in respect to policy per following post). "Not notable" doesn't hold water. If we delete purely because we now think he is not notable then the floodgates are open to swathes of similar non-notable subjects having their "notability" challenged and articles deleted. No bad thing perhaps, but it isn't the direction we should be taking as I understand the community's consensus. He clearly is, by virtue of our current guidelines, "notable". The article has stood more or less as is for several years. The subject doesn't like Misplaced Pages and/or his article. Do we have a policy that allows deletion in such a circumstance? Not as far as I'm aware. Leaky Caldron 14:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, we do actually. It is Misplaced Pages:Deletion#Deletion_of_biographies_and_BLPs. which says:

      Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed.

    • A Shropshire local radio personality -- even if they are popular in their area -- still qualifies as a relatively unknown and non-public figure. The absence of this article will not harm the encyclopedia, but will bring a welcome relief to the subject. Moreover, retaining this biography, against the subject's explicit wishes, is very likely indeed to reflect poorly on this project. JN466 15:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
"Relatively unknown" just raises the question of relative to what? I don't think he is unknown compared to our normally pretty low standards under WP:BIO - he qualifies quite comfortably. And can someone who is the main presenter on a BBC radio show really be considered a "non-public figure"? FormerIP (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that Misplaced Pages thinks this person's precise birth date is not important enough to publish, is pretty good proof that they are not in fact notable. You wouldn't find any credible biographical project documenting careers while omitting basic data like dates of birth. Privacy is no grounds for omission, not when you also include alma mater and county of birth - both of which are personally identifying when combined with real name. And if Jim Hawkins is not his real name, then the privacy grounds for excluding DoB disappear. As with a lot of things on Misplaced Pages, WP:DOB looks to have been written by well meaning amateurs, who ultimately don't know anything about subjects like identity theft. Not including the DoB from this particular article, has the same protective effect as a chocolate fire-guard. If any Misplaced Pages person has told Jim Hawkins that without his DoB in the article he's better protected from identity theft, or even given out this general impression to others, then they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, because it's bull crap. Sourcing is not the issue here at all either, as the raising of Demi Moore's birth name on the talk page clearly shows. If she can alter her biography using Twitter, then authorised Twitter feeds are clearly reliable sources for basic facts like birth dates. If Misplaced Pages is to be a credible project, then either the guy is notable enough to be properly documented using all available sources, or he does not warrant a biography at all. Misplaced Pages appears to have made its choice, so it's a delete. For the record, except for prove-able factual inaccuracies (of which DoB is clearly not one), his personal wishes as to what goes in the article, or whether it should exist at all, are irrelevant given that he's very clearly someone whose profile has gone far beyond the point at which he can be considered a private individual - all opinions to the contrary simply look like over-blown agenda driven moral panic to me. Crummity Nordrid (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
— Crummity Nordrid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I'm confused by the contribution above. You say the subject is "very clearly someone whose profile has gone far beyond the point at which he can be considered a private individual" but you're !voting delete? Although this is your first edit with this account you clearly know your way around WP, so can you explain how those two add up? Kim Dent-Brown 15:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very clearly a notable subject. The argument that he feels stalked and or ill because of wikipedia just doesn't hold water or as Jimbo says is ludicrous..Edinburgh Wanderer 16:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that if we are going to cite Jimbo here, we should also cite his later post, where he says "I think it should be deleted..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I am clearly referring to his comment on the nature of whether wikipedia is effecting his health which is total nonsense. He publicly gives this information repeatedly through other means. Misplaced Pages should not be controlled in this way. The subject is clearly notable and meets inclusion guidelines and as long as we abide by our guidelines then it should stay. Whilst i have every sympathy for someone who truly does have mental health issues i cannot see how wikipedia in anyway is affecting his health any more then him giving out this info freely through his own twitter accounts and his bios for programmes he has worked for. Also this is all coming from someone who not too long ago urged his listeners to vandalise wikipedia. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
        I wonder how he'd have felt if his listeners had taken him at his word and vandalised his own article? Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is notable. Article could perhaps use an additional source or two which are independent of the BBC but that's not really grounds for deletion. Any alleged indiscretions by one or two editors over what appear to be quite minor issues certainly shouldn't be grounds for deletion either, nor should demands by the subject.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Per Malleus, and Kim Dent-Brown The individual is notable enough to pass our inclusion threshold and the material here is reliably sourced. While I have some sympathy for the individual's complaint - they cannot deny that they are sharing this information publicly themselves both through their own website and through Twitter/Facebook and to demand control of what gets said on the internet and where seems a clear example of censorship which Misplaced Pages can not be if it hopes to be neutral. I believe attempts to communicate with the individual have been made by Jimbo, and other editors only to be rebuked - unlike forums and noticeboards, Misplaced Pages is one site where individuals willing to connect and communicate can help shape what is said about them but they have to do so through the established process. It may be that an Arb Com remedy proves the only means to resolve this issue in the long term. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The article's entire talk page is presently a BLP violation. The subject opted out of having their date of birth in the article years ago, and the talk page is filled with speculation based on stalking his tweets. Further more, the subject is currently being called "deliberately obstructive" for exercising his right under policy to have the date of birth excluded, and his objections are called "not relevant". Again, all he has done is exercise his right under WP:BLPPRIVACY. For that, he is abused, while nothing happens to the editors denying him his rights under policy. JN466 16:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Hard to see how this is cyberbullying. I have no strong views on keep/delete and agree that there is borderline notability. It would, however, be a slippery slope to allow individuals to veto the existence of a BLP article if sufficient notability exists. This is not the Daniel Brandt saga by any means, if Jim Hawkins thinks that this article is bad, he should try having one on Encyclopedia Dramatica.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only relevant consideration is whether the subject passes WP:BIO. The fact that he has asked for the article to be deleted is not relevant. The (apparent) fact that there has been questionable editing to the page is a reason only to deal with that specific problem. FormerIP (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Given the history, given the article has been used to harass the subject for years, do the right thing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This is a deletion discussion for the article. If you are making accusations of harassment against a specific editor, please do so in an appropriate noticeboard where you can supply detail and diffs of the evidence, such as on WP:ANI, rather than making off-topic claims here. --Fæ (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Good point. Thanks. I've rephrased. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
        In what way has it been used to harass anyone? All I've seen is an argument (now resolved) about whether or not to include the subject's date of birth. If that's harassment in your book then you're setting a pretty low bar. If the subject wants to make a pratt of himself by bad-mouthing Misplaced Pages in his radio broadcasts and on Facebook then let him; just makes him look petty. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
          • He's been saying he doesn't want his birth date in the article for years and it's been persistently re-added. It's upsetting him. That's harassment. We've treated him poorly. The loss of this article is no loss. Deleting it costs us nothing and assuages his hurt. It's the right thing to do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you for taking this collegiate step, that is very helpful. In consideration of the advice to avoid this topic that Pigsonthewing has received, and the possible future topic ban under discussion at WP:AN, could other contributors please avoid making allegations about Pigsonthewing here, when any points of this type should be raised at the current AN discussion and correctly supported by detailed evidence. --Fæ (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • delete We have reason to keep this article and even the DOB, should there be any valid reason for the encyclopedia to cover it. If this was some criminal or fraudster who was making capital from mis-representing themselves, then we might have good cause to do so, despite their protestation. As it is though, there's no reason to do anything of the sort, including coverage at all. A subject's request for deletion isn't the strongest reason, but it's quite enough here.
Andy Mabbett's behaviour is quite inappropriate here. Just what great purpose does he think is served by annoying an innocent radio presenter? I'd support the topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly a notable subject. And clearly Andy Mabbetts behaviour is unacceptable so something should be done about his actions, but that doesn't mean deleting the article. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NPF. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - clearly marginal notability, has been the subject of all sorts of nonsense, plus the subject wants it gone for numerous reasons - Alison 18:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    Such as what? Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. We're responsible for getting the article to follow all policies. If we cannot do this, we should delete the article, because BLPs that don't follow policies cannot be tolerated. Saying "it's just one person, and besides, we *could* ban him if we really wanted to" is not a legitimate excuse for our inability to follow BLP. The talk page just makes it worse, and again "well, we could fix it (but haven't yet)" is no excuse. We had years to fix it and have shown ourselves to be unable to; the only recourse left is to delete. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Categories: