Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Andrews (cryptanalyst)


 * 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  12:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Helen Andrews (cryptanalyst)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Helen Andrews has appointed me as her Attorney and I would like to request that this article about her is removed from Wikipedia. She is a non-notable individual and this material presents a safeguarding threat in that it reveals where she lives. It states that she is a Chelsea Pensioner at the Royal Hospital Chelsea and she has recently received letters from men requesting to correspond with her. She has no idea how these men have managed to find her but the fact that Wikipedia states where she lives may be the reason. Helen Andrews has full intellectual capacity but, at the age of 96, she is not acquainted with the social complexities of online information nor the implications of engaging with social media. One of my most serious concerns is that one of the men who has written to her will ask her for her email address and open the door to any manner of personal problems for her. In addition, the article is extremely badly written, is littered with mistakes and inaccuracies and offers the reader no insights into Helen Andrews and her life beyond the information already available via its references. I believe it has no place on Wikipedia. SwimHappy (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * statement copied from Special:PermaLink/1114422077. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I was the editor who created and wrote the article. I believed that Andrews was notable due to her work in the war and the fact that she had been profiled by the BBC, but I can see now that she is of marginal notability. Wikipedia can only source information from already existing public sources, so the article reflects the paucity of information available. You should request that the Royal Hospital themselves remove the two articles on her and  from their website to safeguard her privacy. I do believe that the publicity that the Royal Hospital have generated is the greatest threat to her privacy. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete She doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. The BBC source is an interview with little info specifically about her. The other website probably isn't reliable or independent of her. Good luck on persuading the BBC on taking their interviews down. Dougal18 (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fair enough, but doesn't "Helen Andrews has appointed me as her Attorney" represent a legal threat? Just wonderin'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, that's silly. It is a statement of how and why the user is posting a deletion request. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that statement is a legal threat, and even if it is, the person who made the comment registered their account for just this purpose and I'm sure they do not know how things works here.  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  14:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment In the UK, the word "attorney" more often means someone who has power of attorney rather than acting as someone's lawyer. I would guess this is a relative or friend of hers, not her lawyer. There are a couple more odd items about this message, firstly that the Royal Hospital and the BBC first gave her the publicity and identified where she lives, and secondly the bit about "men" contacting her which seems to imply that she has received unwanted romantic overtures which seems a little unlikely. I find it hard to believe that a real lawyer would write in these terms. She's not notable but neither has No Swan So Fine done anything wrong in taking three reliable sources, presumably created with Andrews cooperation, and turning them into a short biography of one of the unsung people who helped win the Second World War and went unacknowledged for decades. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going to say, trying not to reveal too much, that you are pretty much correct on your points regarding "attorney". If anyone wants further explanation feel free to shoot me an email. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fairly enough, the page creator is justifying deleting the page (which amounts to reason enough, taking from all the arguments and cases already made against the page's existence). Failing to achieve any large-scale level of significance to either the finer details or the bigger picture, why the page would warrant an encyclopedic treatment is highly difficult, for me, to reason. (P.S. SwimHappy's overview of the nomination is... unusual, to say the least, barely helpful in affirming the irrelevance of the page in a way - an intellectually in-depth overview of factual information wouldn't necessarily breach any form of privacy, just as listing educational achievements of a figure or mere facts of a similar sort wouldn't infringe on any rights.) ^^ Though I believe there's solid consensus here, would anyone else like to join in? TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a frankly bizarre request since Ms Andrews presumably co-operated with both the Royal Hospital and BBC articles on her, which are still online. Why has Wikipedia in particular been asked to take its article down? I'm not commenting on her notability, but this whole thing is a bit weird. "She has no idea how these men have managed to find her..." Well, er, maybe look a bit closer to home? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2022 (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.