Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward des Clayes


 * 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. Given that all "keep" opinions except ChildofMidnight's are specified to be weak, I'm closing this guided by the "do no harm" principle of WP:BLP.  Sandstein  06:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Edward des Clayes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Edward des Clayes wants article deleted for fear of bias against him by future employers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcballeballe (talk • contribs) — Mcballeballe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak Keep there is sourcing covering his suit, which is porbably equally findably by future employers but I am senstive to subject's wishes so weak keep at this moment StarM 12:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete if the creator of the article puts this up for deletion, I say delete. Ikip (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I was tempted to opt for a delete - as per the request which I am extremly sympathetic to - but the article is sourced and notable. I've not come across a similar case before. Is there a policy or guidline that relates to this? The problem is how do we know this is Edward des Clayes asking for deletion. This equally could be the employers trying to delete this because of the adverse publicity. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Identity is typically confirmed through WP:OTRS, but I'm not sure that was done here. OTRS members post ticket numbers when they get such a request. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, since it was one legal case, and per the principle that first, we should avoid doing harm. The only sources were from April-May 2002.Aside from Wikipedia, there is not much about him on Google. We are not private detectives to create and maintain dossiers on private individuals for what happened when they were 15, so that it turns up on the most casual of Google searches in so prominent a forum as Wikipedia. Why does he deserve less consideration that Allison Stokke, whose article was deleted, even though she was older and had far, far more press sources? There are several other precedents for deleting articles about minors who were in the news. Edison (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to legal case, which seems notable, per blp1e. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and others Simply south (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.