Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham McCann (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. WP:SNOW Neil N  talk to me 03:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Graham McCann
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

SECOND DELETE REQUEST: I've been asked to post this in connection with the delete nomination dated 2 August.

I am the subject of the article and I do not believe that I am any kind of public figure, or at least not one who is of anything like sufficient prominence to justify an article about me.

This article has infringed on my privacy. I am not a current writer, I am not seeking publicity of any kind, I want to live my life in private. Perhaps this is a culture in which such a desire has come to be seen as unusual, but I can assure you that it is sincere. I find this article an unnecessary and profoundly hurtful and distressing invasion of my privacy, actively creating or increasing my public profile against my wishes.

Second: It is a poorly researched article that provides only a partial, imbalanced and in places, in my view, strangely misleading impression of my past work. The list of my published output, for example, is strikingly incomplete. What is mentioned is questionably imbalanced: for example, two of my oldest books lead to negative critical quotes about my research and judgement; the vast majority of reviews I've ever had make a point of praising my research and most have been admiring of my judgement, and yet none of these quotes have been included even as balance, even though the one book that IS acknowledged as being 'praised,' and attracted many of such positive critical comments, is accompanied by no such quotes. That's unrepresentative. After dwelling, for some peculiar reason, on my four earliest books from the last century, the author covers the rest in the most superficial way, again providing an extremely dubious and skewed impression of a career. He also mentions that, for my book on Dad's Army, I 'conducted numerous interviews with cast members' - well, yes I did, but this implies that I didn't 'conduct numerous interviews' for my other books, which I did. That's an odd thing to do, and it's misleading, too. You can't claim my work deserves inclusion and then treat it in such a capricious manner.

There are many other signs of ignorance and poor research. I have not, for example, written 'numerous articles' on any subject for the Daily Mail. As far as I recall I've written about a couple for that paper in my entire life. I've written numerous ones for certain other papers - which are not noted. That's misleading. The author appears not to know the period in which I wrote for the Financial Times - these are all things that one is supposed to ascertain and double check BEFORE publishing something on someone - you don'y just go clodhopping over a living person's past career.

Then there's my academic work. Because the only detail the author appears to know about (apart from my - unspecified - period as a Lecturer) is my past work for the University of Cambridge's 'summer extension programme' (not that I've ever heard it referred to as that), that's all he's included. It's even wrong to claim that this particular work is ongoing - it isn't. It's something I consider as an offer from time to time. It's wrong to describe it as current. Then there's absolutely no further detail on a long academic career - no positions other than a fellowship (there were many), no research details, no academic output. This, again, is a strikingly incomplete, misleading and potentially damaging section.

I could go on, but I'm really tired at how long this has already run as a dispute. Surely, in a cool hour, you can sit back, reflect, and appreciate that any claim to my supposed 'relevance' is so contentious that, considered on its own and also in relation to the great distress it's causing me, and will continue to cause me, it's not worth keeping it. I haven't seen any sign of anyone at Wikipedia who is able or willing to imagine the issue from an outsider's point of view. My point of view. I hope someone will now do this. This has caused me so much hurt, so needlessly, for such a trivial, insubstantial and patently unimpressive article. Please drop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.93.50 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to that dash-dash signature thing, so here you are. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement above was copied from the article talk page where it was placed by the IP after adding the AFD tag to the article. -- GB fan 18:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE . While I do think the subject of the article meets WP:NAUTHOR I don't believe he is an especially prominent figure where the project really needs an article on the subject. I can see where this could go either way, but given the subject's strongly expressed desire not to be covered here I am inclined to respect his wishes. Most of the more concrete issues cited in the nominating statement are however, fixable, and not grounds for deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral Striking my pro-delete out of deference to the clear consensus in favor of keeping the article. It doesn't look like there is much sympathy on here for Mr. McCann and there is a clear consensus that the notability of the subject is so strong that it precludes consideration of BLPREQUESTDELETE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep Notable author, regardless. He is one of Britain's most notable biographers, and poorly researched it isn't, based on what actually exists. "profoundly hurtful and distressing invasion of my privacy" is poppycock, all the article does is replicate what has been reported elsewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment I am highly suspicious at this nomination. I am rather doubtful that this is really Graham himself, and not somebody associated with the original desire for deletion. If it is Graham, it's the  I've been asked to post this and I could go on, but I'm really tired at how long this has already run as a dispute part I don't like, I would guess that Collect or somebody emailed him or is putting him up to this to try to force a deletion. Either way he needs to prove who he is and dial down the abusive comments on the talk page. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And how pray do I prove I'm me? I presume you think the 'real me' would be so grateful to have this rubbish inflicted on him he'd thank you. This is extraordinary. You don't even for a moment seem to appreciate how bizarre it is to be so dismissive of the subject of an article. And no apparent anger or irritation or even mild concern over how shoddily this article has been 'researched'. You do your research thoroughly, check it again and again, make sure it's comprehensive, and then and only then should you publish. You all should care about the quality of your own site. Instead some of you seem so blithely unconcerned it's astonishing to me. I very much doubt if this was happening to YOU you'd be so cavalier about the matter.92.23.93.50 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't presume that the real you would be overjoyed with the article. I agree also that there isn't a massive amount of biographical material covered about you and that the article is pretty sketchy and far from ideal. But essentially all we do is really mention your lecturing work and your publications, replicating largely what is written in the back of books and summary websites about you anyway. You've also mentioned a major concern about privacy, but we give very little detail about you or your private life, and cover nothing which isn't already written about you in your books and related sites anyway. So I don't see how this wikipedia article could be massively detrimental. And you even confess that you were put up to this by somebody else. If it is you Graham then I'd guess that User:Collect contacted you and got you to see this as something really negative.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep Per Blofeld, there are a load of reliable secondary sources to back this up. He definitely seems like a prestigious biographer, so it passes WP:GNG. JAG UAR   18:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Jaguar, and the arguments made in the first nomination. The quality of an article should not be the determining factor in providing an article, the notability of the subject is. I think McCann is notable enough, given the work he's produced. I'm sure the article possibly doesn't get the balance right in places, but that's an argument for fixing it, not for deletion. – SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Unfortunately, whether Mr. McCann wants the article's existence or not is irrelevant, since it easily meets the criteria for notability regardless of his desire. The information is properly sourced. κατάστασ η  18:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. If the IP is indeed the subject of the article, I sympathise with his desire for privacy and would love him to provide corrective or simply additional references to enable the article to give a fuller picture of his career, but the article is not a hit piece and in my opinion the widespread and detailed coverage of his work amply satisfies the general notability guideline or if one prefers, WP:NAUTHOR. I've made one change based on those talkpage comments. IP, if you are reading this, please try OTRS again. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dr. Blofeld. No legitimate reason for deletion, several for improvement. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 19:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dr. Blofeld. The subject might want to read about the Streisand effect if they want be anonymous. I never would have come across this article if it had not been brought to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If McCann was really serious about wanting to be private he'd not have gone on national television at numerous times!♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dr. Blofeld and Jaguar. Article displays a clear merit for notability. MWright96 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. We have only this WP:IP's word as to who he says he is.  Ipse dixit applies.  Moreover, so what if he is who he says he is?  No Liberum veto for the subjects of articles here.  Article has plenty of sources.  Subject is "encyclopedic" enough to warrant an article. he is a "public figure" who has voluntarily positioned himself as such.  All this brouhaha reminds me of Barbara Streisand's house. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, me and Barbra Streisand, that's a typically measured comparison. Well done. And as for 'voluntarily positioning' - that's just simplistic and insulting.92.23.93.50 (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If you wanted privacy, why did you agree to appear on national television numerous times? Why did you write books about some of the most famous people and shows in the world and put your name out there if you wanted to keep a low profile. You're not just some minor college lecturer, but your name is right up there with some of the most reputable British biographers. And what's all this about  I've been asked to post this ? Who asked you to post this, User:Collect?♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

My god you're a smug one. The only times I've been on television - it seems it's an obsession of yours - has been very reluctantly to give information drawn from my books which would otherwise have been passed on to a substitute who'd probably get it wrong. I expected a thoughtful consideration of my request, not a series of self-admiring put-downs. Is this typical of how Wikipedia volunteers behave, or are just some lone egomaniac?92.23.93.50 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * And you're an arrogant, rude, supercilious know-it-all who can't possibly consider the views of others. People who want to keep a low profile don't write about super famous people like Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant and Woody Allen. You exploited the public for years in making money from these celebrities. And now you want to try to hide mention of your existence on what you clearly consider to be an amateurish junk website anyway? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , that may be a reference to my comment on the IP's user page after he had placed an AFD template on the page without completing the process. clpo13(talk) 21:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Serial conversations and requests to delete are simply a waste of editor's valuable time. The IP has said nothing that was not already fairly considered and rejected in the first nomination.  Moreover, the previous WP:Legal threats are no reason to kowtow to the IP now.  If there is a policy that let's someone rewrite history and voluntarily disappear himself from the encyclopedia, I'd like to see it. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Absolute slam-dunk keep. Well-referenced, notability is clearly established and easily passes WP:GNG. To the IP, if you are indeed the subject of the article, I'm sorry you are upset that the article exists here, however as stated earlier, we don't know if you are who you say you are, because On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. If you truly are the subject, have you sent a correspondence to WP:OTRS regarding this and your concerns with the article? Also, I checked and I have never seen a comment at WP:BLP/N, which is an avenue to try, have you looked into reaching out there? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

That's the trouble. It's assumed any of these terms make any sense to outsiders. These abbreviations all look more or less the same to someone unfamiliar with this place. I did email someone, if that's what you mean, and he/she merely sympathised and said 'I'm just a volunteer'. As for this page, had I known this was going to be the kind of tone I'd have pursued other means straight away. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Speedy Close if any uninvolved editors happen to be wandering by. I think the consensus is so clear that there is no point in dragging this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The person is not notable as a person, and, indeed, he states so himself in his request for deletion. The "biography" is a list of books - and would only justify List of books by Graham McCann at most. Collect (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to respectfully, but strongly disagree. The subject clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also disagree, but not respectfully... In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Collect was behind this AFD. He's notable as a writer. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The result of the very recent previous AFD discussion should be respected. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep IMDb lists 23 television apparances. This probably does not in any way make a person notable, but it does make later claims that they want "privacy" unconvincing. Especially his earliest biographies were well reviewed. His later works were also widely reviewed. This article does not even say how old he is, so I find it very hard to see it as any sort of invasion of privacy. He is without question a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I am less swayed by claims that the IP (who has still yet to go through the OTRS team to verify their identity) "is not seeking publicity of any kind" and and wants "to live my life in private", when they have their own website, complete with a potted biography of themselves that's 2/3rds the size of our article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Putting aside the legitimate false flag question involving this WP:IP, the whole request and "privacy" issue is a red herring. At bottom it is a garden variety WP:Content dispute masquerading as a WP:AFD.  They don't like what the article says.  The IP wants to control the content and distributors of information.  And maintain its own exclusivity, if not monopoly, on messages and publicized information. Indeed, Policy offers clear guidance on how this all should be resolved. 7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed - and as there's a clear consensus to Keep I see no reason for the (at times) immature debate that's currently running across two Talk pages.Exemplo347 (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There would be no "immature" debate if McCann was respectful towards editors here in the first place. He turned up with "What you COULD do is just remove this appalling badly researched, almost non-researched, article. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Funny how you don't have the decency to discuss this with the very person who is the undeserved subject of your ill-informed article. I guess, in your astonishing arrogance, you think you know better than I do about myself. What a disgrace you are.92.23.93.50 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)" When you have that level of obnoxiousness and people calling you a "lone egomaniac" it's not easy to ignore. I wonder if he treated his students in the same way.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY CLOSE Anyone? I suggested it a while ago. The sole Delete vote does not even come close to casting doubt on how this AfD is going to end. Nothing of substance is being added to the discussion at this point. In all honesty this AfD was probably WP:Dead on arrival. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY CLOSE Seconded.  WP:Snowball!  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY CLOSE I don't even know why this second nomination was entertained in the first place. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2016 (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.