Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Gee


 * 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. While there is a case for deleting this article under WP:BIODEL this applies to relatively unknown, non-public figures. What is a non-public figure (and why would Wikipedia have an article about them anyway?) Our guide is the essay at Who is a low-profile individual which suggests several helpful criteria, all of which indicate that this is a high profile person. They have given interviews to major news outlets, sought publicity for their books, they hold a position of influence in research. They do not meet the general definition of a low-profile individual: A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. While I'm sympathetic to the right to disappear I think this person has put their head too far above the parapet to maintain that right. As to the claims of libel, the one-line reference to a controversy is reasonably sourced and the source (rather than Wikipedia) is probably the better target for any action. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  10:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC).

Henry Gee
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As the subject of this page I am nominating it for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromercrox (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems to "have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" wp:basic and more so under WP:NACADEMIC for being a senior editor at nature and fits under WP:CREATIVE. Seems pretty clear to me that we should keep this article. -Pengortm (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak delete The article is in a decent state and passes our usual standard of notability, but we could delete it under WP:BIODEL if nobody objects. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, reluctantly, per 's comments. Given that multiple editors have argued to keep on the basis that Gee is a "public figure", and the article itself is well sourced and has a long history, I don't think we can apply WP:BIODEL here after all. However, I think this is a good example of why we could do to strengthen that guideline. The "right to be forgotten" (for low-profile individuals) that mentions below is something we should be protecting per WP:BLP. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep . I read too quickly and did not notice that it was the subject of the article who was requesting deletion. I am not certain whether to consider Gee a public figure or not, but am leaning slightly towards that which gives me the week keep. -Pengortm (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * updated from weak keep to keep based on below discussion. -Pengortm (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. at subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep as no one has actually stated there's explicit need and the nominator could be mistaken about our policies for notability (see WP:PROF and he is in fact notable, a major book by a major publisher. So, unless there's specification, there is no "non-notability". SwisterTwister   talk  05:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I think he passes WP:AUTHOR (but I note that there are currently 16 senior editors in biology alone for Nature and that it is editor-in-chief that normally passes WP:PROF #8). However, if we don't honor the subject's request to delete the entry, I hope that we could at least consider removing the image. It's a picture from a public place (a pub), but I hope that we could use our common sense to determine that this isn't a professional reflection on the subject. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * keep Oh, dear. In this privacy-deprived age my sympathies are entirely with Henry Gee.  We used to have the right to lead private lives.  The problem is that Gee doesn't lead such a life, at least not professionally.  He has published widely reviewed books.  Holding the job of senior Editor of Nature (journal) is notable by definition, even though the post has been a lightening rod for controversy since Darwin v. Huxley.  Unfortunately, because he is a senior editor he has been at the center of controversy, unpleasant controversy not related to misbehavior on his part, but simply because of the status he holds.  I wish that we could in good conscious comply with his request, or that by taking him off Wikipedia we could give him back his privacy.  It's a pity, but there it is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIODEL. Notability is a condition for an article, not a requirement for one. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but neither do we delete articles about public figures.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What policy is that? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC).
 * The policy cited: WP:BIODEL, which applies only to "relatively unknown, non-public figures," a description that does not fit Henry Gee, who is a well-known.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have started an expand/source on the distinguished career of this scientist and author of both scholarly and popular books. The difficulty is not only the plethora of sources, but the complexity of a career with such a wide range of interests.  In the early years of this century, for example, I have just  discovered the marvelously erudite and wide ranging essays he used ot write for The Guardian.   then there are the books, not only the scholarly books, but the Stephen Jay Gould-style explications of science fo r a popular audience.  Not to mention his remarkable work on Tolkien.  The controversies turn out to be so minor compared with the distinction of the career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't decided yet which way to go on this one, but I checked both the history of the article and of Mr. Gee, posting as Cromercrox, and as an I.P. address, and noticed that it was Gee himself who created the article, then attempted to remove information on the Isis controversy when it was posted.  Maybe delete based on conflict of interest would also apply here.  ABF99 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted below, the article was created by, not Gee, and he appears to have only edited it occasionally to make minor corrections and remove BLP-violating material, which is more or less in line with WP:COISELF. Besides, COI editing isn't usually considered a reason to delete an article. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is me, Henry Gee. To correct a misperception, I did not create the entry on myself. I was very surprised to see it, and wish it had never appeared, as its only function appears to be as a magnet for trolls. Unable to persuade Wikipedia to remove it, I have at times encouraged friends to post silly things on it. I do not believe I am notable enough for a wikipedia entry, and apart from that I'd rather like Wikipedia to adopt the 'right to be forgotten', if requested, adopted by some internet sources, I believe.cromercrox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.243.114 (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. My mistake and my apologies to Mr. Gee.  The subject seems to be on the borderline of notability.  He has indeed written and published a lot, but I'm not finding enough written about him to require a biography here. ABF99 (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep unfortunately for the nominator, he is notable enough for an article. Not sure how the "right to be forgotten" could be handled on Wikipedia. Perhaps this could be brought to the attention of WMF for discussion? I'll see if I can figure out the appropriate way to handle this — Iadmc  ♫ talk 07:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Add—as it turns out, the WikiMedia Foundation is pretty much against the "right to be forgotten":, so they may not be too interested/sympathetic — Iadmc  ♫ talk 07:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it is an EU law and the WMF and its servers are mostly in the USA (with a few in the the Netherlands, true) so I'm not sure it applies — Iadmc  ♫ talk 07:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have emailed WMF Legal asking them to comment on this — Iadmc  ♫ talk 07:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is me, Henry Gee, again. If an article is visible in Britain, it is subject to the laws of the United Kingdom, including libel, irrespective of its source and the location of its servers. And while the United Kingdom is still in the European Union, then EU law presumably applies too. Meanwhile I thank the assembled Wikipedians for taking this problem seriously. cromercrox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.243.114 (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * cromercrox: Libel made by Wikipedians about living people is not tolerated on Wikipedia. See WP:BLPREMOVE and especially WP:BLPSOURCES. It should be deleted immediately without discussion. Not sure of the legal position re visibilty, though. Hopefully WMF will clarify the situation soon — Iadmc  ♫ talk 10:27, 19 January 2017 (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.