Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indira Raman


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There is actually a consensus to delete here anyway, but regardless, as a number of editors have pointed out, there is also a requirement for us to Do The Right Thing. Jess is a reliable source for the fact that the subject doesn't want an article, and if we consider the minimal extra value to an encyclopedia that has 7 million articles versus that request, then given the borderline notability the latter should win every time. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Indira Raman

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

Fixing improperly created AFD. User's reason: Please can we draftify/ delete this page? The subject of the page does not want a page, she isn't happy being on wikipedia, and it seems unnecessary to keep it up. Jesswade88 (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, United States of America,  and Illinois. UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: For the record, I do not support deletion. The subject passes the notability policy for professors. UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this per personal communication with you, or can you link us to subject's on-WP comments somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't link it, I would just appreciate if we could move it to the draft space. The article is apparently causing unnecessary distress, which was obviously never the intention. Jesswade88 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh well. We'll see what happens, the closer may consider what weight to give WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE/WP:BLPKIND in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why draftify and not delete? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because draftify is quick and anyone can do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, if she didn’t want an article, she shouldn’t have gone and gotten herself elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's harsh - and I don't believe being one of the c. 5,700 members is regarded as a strong claim to notability per se, per previous discussions I can't exactly remember. She seems rather marginal for WP:NPROF to me. We are getting more selective on named chairs, nowc there are so many. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Harsh? Not like the page is a hit piece making bad accusations. Literally just what you could find out about this person on the web, put together in one place. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Courtesy deletion, per WP:BIODELETE. Subject is notable, but not so notable that not having an article about her is a gaping hole in our encyclopedia. Jess Wade has noticeable contacts in the scientific community, if she says subject wants the page deleted, I believe her. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences has 6385 living members, do we really have articles on all of them? I doubt it. The article is being nominated by the person who originally created the article, only a few months ago. Let us not torture the people we write articles about ... unless they truly deserve it, like politicians . --GRuban (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Torture? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, you got me, that was ... hyperbolic. Let's say torment.--GRuban (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not having articles for all 6385 living members sounds a bit like WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think this really falls within the scope of BIODELETE or BLPREQUESTDELETE, and I'm not seeing anything on the page that is offensive. If the page subject would like anything removed from the page (perhaps things from her early life, or about her interests in mental health), we should accommodate that, but this doesn't extend to page deletion. If this were a case of someone who was marginally notable for something that happened in passing and was dodgy (cf WP:PERP), or if it were poorly sourced, then BIODELETE would apply, but here, we have a very distinguished scientist with a named chair at a major institution, who easily passes WP:PROF. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards keep for similar reasoning, but I would support trimming parts of the article if that would help. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up to what I said, this isn't some trivial "named chair" at some low-tier institution, but a significant named chair, and chairpersonship of a department, at a major US research university. And I've looked over her publications, and they are high-profile publications in major journals with high rates of citation by other authors. This is an easy pass of WP:PROF, not by any means a borderline case. I think the only reason we are here at AfD is because an editor received some sort of personal communication from the page subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For whatever it may be worth, I made this edit to the page: . It's an EL to an extended interview she gave, and consented to have online. I recognize that it's not as prominent as a Wikipedia bio, but it is evidence against the idea that she wants to remain private online. I really do wish that we had more information about what she may or may not have said to an editor, because this AfD seems to rest entirely on what that editor has indicated about it. We don't even have an OTRS request, and I'm very uncomfortable with Wikipedia making content decisions about what a page subject maybe said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fish, I see where you're swimming from. If this was a nomination by some newbie editor I too would be saying, "are you sure"? But this isn't just the article author, who one would think would be the person who would most want her work kept. This is Jess Wade. We have a non-trivial article about her, because some of the biggest reliable sources in the world, from the BBC to the Washington Post to El Pais have written about her work writing hundreds of articles about women and minority scientists just like this one. I think we can take her word for this. --GRuban (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been trying very hard not to ABF about that editor, but I'm genuinely uncomfortable. It wouldn't be that hard for her to simply respond to the multiple requests and pings that have been sent her way. I could say a lot more, but I won't. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete including per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which includes, Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, be closed as delete." Based on the article and its sources, and my search, Raman appears to be a non-public figure who is relatively unknown. She was interviewed in 2016 about an essay she wrote and also presented a version of at a 2016 research conference. The one source available at the GNews link is not actually about her, it is about a report described as highlighting "cases of discrimination, bullying and harassment - alongside a systemic failure across the sector to deal with these issues effectively" - the interview about her discussing her experience as a woman in science is linked in the "Related Content" section. While the specific objections are unclear, I think it would be better for us to not try to guess or use subjective judgments about what may be objectionable, and to instead honor the wishes of this subject. Beccaynr (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, the only information that we have about "the wishes of this subject" is in this edit summary:, and subsequent comments about that in this AfD discussion. Also, your comment made me take a closer look at the wording about "there is no rough consensus". That's what WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says, in quotation marks attributed to WP:BIODELETE. But BIODELETE doesn't say that, and the page history doesn't show any recent changes about it. Instead, it says "and there is no clear consensus to keep may be closed as delete". (And in the absence of a page subject request, it says "where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed.") It seems to me that we should want to have more than that edit summary, for us to get from the AfD discussion so far, from may delete, to must delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We have the primary author's, Jess Wade's, comments right on this discussion, actually. --GRuban (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we edit conflicted with me correcting that in my comment before I saw your reply. It's awfully hard for me to reconcile that with what the page actually says. This case is very different from the situations that BIODELETE and BLPREQUESTDELETE were written to address. It's true that the page subject is a non-public figure, as we define the term. But this is very far from a page about a marginally notable person that presents uncomfortable information about that person. The page, as it currently appears, presents her in a pretty laudatory way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet she doesn't want it. I don't think we should use our judgment about whether or not she should like a page. If she doesn't, she doesn't. --GRuban (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I hear you on that. But I think we are using our judgment to conclude that "she doesn't want it". I'm going by what the deletion and BLP policies say about this, and it just doesn't seem to me to add up to a "must delete" kind of situation. Maybe a little more information about what the page subject has communicated about not wanting the page would make me change my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BIODELETE previously said "rough consensus" until it was changed with the edit summary "tweak" on 18:27 20 January 2021, and there was some discussion on the policy Talk page. But I don't think the "tweak" changes or seems intended to change the basic policy framework - we appear to have a nonpublic figure who is relatively unknown, who has credibly requested deletion of an article written about them, and as noted in the AfD nom and this discussion, we have more than an edit summary to support the wishes of the subject. Beccaynr (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Where do we have that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is the AfD nomination, which includes the statement from article creator, and then another comment from Jesswade88  in this discussion; WP:BLPKINDNESS notes, Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative, so from my view, this appears to be a credible request. Beccaynr (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously, everyone here wishes to avoid BLP-UNKINDNESS. At the same time, it would be very helpful to know whether this is truly a case of the page subject saying "this is causing me distress, because the article says xyz, and that's something that I don't want publicized online", or whether it's "you know, being the subject of a Wikipedia page isn't all that it's made out to be". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that anyone is intentionally attempting to be unkind; I cited BLPKINDNESS to support the credibility of the request made on behalf of the subject. And to add to my previous comments, there appears to be no policy-based requirement for a relatively unknown, nonpublic figure article subject to do more than request deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. But both policies say "may be deleted"; neither says "must be deleted". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and from my view, the relatively small size of the article and general reliance on primary and nonindependent sources supports the exercise of discretion to delete. My opinion might be different if WP:PROF, WP:GNG, or an SNG (such as WP:NAUTHOR) were supported because the subject would probably not be relatively unknown. Beccaynr (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think we should have articles on all female American Academy members. Deleting the article on her would leave a hole in our coverage. She has a very easy pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to add that she also has a clear pass of WP:PROF, through the named professorship, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per subject's request.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. While we should honor a request from the subject in a case where notability is marginal, I see a completely solid pass of WP:NPROF here.  If there are specific aspects of the article that are causing distress, then likely we could trim those. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per subject and creating editor's request, as per Beccaynr's rationale. Zeromonk (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete We need to give special attention to the wishes of living people. This person has apparently made it quite clear that she does not want her biography on Wikipedia. Her entry on Wikidata will of course remain.--Ipigott (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's difficult to see why the subject doesn't want the article, but I'm prepared to WP:AGF and say that if Jess Wade, famous for her work increasing the coverage of women scientists in Wikipedia, who created the article, wants it deleted because of concerns exxpressed by the subject, then it should go. Pam  D  07:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE really applies here. The subject is very clearly a notable scientist and public figure (holds a named chair at a major university, member of a national learned society, prolific and widely-cited author, does interviews and press about her research, etc). She's not "relatively unknown" by any stretch of the imagination. But if the subject and the creator and only significant contributor to the article wants it deleted, it's a bit churlish for us to say no. So WP:IAR, delete. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The article subject legitimately passes our notability criteria—and in spades—to the extent to which I BLPRQUESTDELETE cannot apply: 'well-known' does not necessarily mean to the general public but 'in their field', as in the case of NPROF, it's already assumed they won't be popularly notable. But holders of academic chairs and repeatedly published authors are experts in that field and de facto notable in it for our purposes. I also don't think IAR applies: this is too good an example of the kind of subjects we should be covering to merely throw it out on a whim. Now, if there were a suggestion that the page attracted endangerment or unnecessarily bad publicity, then it should be TNT'd immediately. But there's been no suggestion that that is the case—it would have been mentioned from the start, I assume extremely vocally!—so this really comes down to personal opinion.I think that if a subject is only on the verge or passing our notability guidelines, then BLPRD applies. If an article endangers the subject in any way, then BLPRD applies. But if the subject is well-sourced and notable, and the article adheres to the usual requirements of BLP, then BLPRD is outweighed by WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:N. Three core content policies which dictate what material we hold except in certain limited circumstances; I do not see such circumstances here.  Serial  14:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep but we need to convene an on and off-wiki social and ethical conversation about this recurring situation. Even if we delete this, that deletion is going to draw more attention to this person because this is the kind of person for whom Wikipedia generates biographies, and if this article were deleted, our other processes recruit editors to re-create the article about them.
 * This is a fairly standard biography of a prominent scientist who is highly visible for publishing research, accepting positions of leadership, receiving awards, being named in government documents as the recipient and investigator for grants, and otherwise having a public life in professional research. They meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability criteria, and they do not meet any criteria for deletion. We have had discussions for 20 years about whether we will delete biographies by request for no reason, and have consensus that as an editorial practice we do not offer this.
 * As I look at this biography, it looks orderly, respectable, and to Wikipedia community standards. I see nothing shameful here. I want to share my own observation that with regularity I encounter cases where a professional woman requests deletion of their nice biography. I cannot recall ever encountering a case of a man doing this. If I had to guess based on seeing women's cases but not men's cases, I would guess that women request deletion of their flattering biographies 100 times more than men. If we wanted accurate numbers, it would be easy to design an undergraduate data science project to go over all of Wikipedia and estimate how often this has happened. I am not saying that this request from this person has anything to do with their gender, but I am detecting a pattern here and if we need a deletion policy to take into account something gender related then we should discuss that explicitly and we probably need more information.
 * Here are some patterns of similar cases that I have observed:
 * This case, professional woman accepts professional recognition in their field along with its accompanying media records. They have an readily accessible online presence by their name, but definitely Wikipedia makes them more accessible. They have no identified scandals. Sometimes they report stalking, harassment, or desire for privacy. I have only observed professional women doing this and never professional men.
 * Protestor in the streets does attention seeking behavior, which definitely includes their visibility as a participant. They may give interviews, be photographed, or document themselves in media as an advocate for some cause. Somehow they meet WP:N. When it comes to their Wikimedia presence, they want privacy. The person may be from any background, but women and minorities request deletion more often than majority demographic men.
 * Online celebrity, such as a YouTuber, streamer or cam performer, erotic performer, or Internet personality is seeking attention online from a particular audience. They post lots of personal information in several platforms. Somehow they meet WP:N. Although they are public on the Internet, they make choices to be public in some places and not others, and see "public places on the Internet" as distinct places which should not overlap. When it comes to their Wikimedia presence, they want privacy, and again, women do this more often.
 * We Wikipedians in the United States have hosted events at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and like so many organizations, that one has requested that we produce biographies of their members. If they want a public or private conversation then the communication channel is open to discuss social and ethical best practices. I am more comfortable making an example and case study out of this person because they are relatively privileged and well connected, and I expect that if they gave a word to the Academy of Sciences, then that academy would readily convene a meeting with Wikipedia editors to discuss best practices. The subject of this biography is also a public speaker on the topic of women in science as in . I would like to make this case not about them personally as soon as possible, and instead about re-examining our general rules, but here we are and it is common knowledge that Wikipedia deletion requests trigger Streisand effect. We will continue to find ourselves in this recurring situation until we get consensus on a standard response.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  15:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is presumptuous of us to say "it's a nice biography, she shouldn't want it deleted". She knows her situation, she has her reasons, whatever they may be. "The subject wants it deleted" is a perfectly fine reason for deletion. "The primary author wants it deleted" is another. "We know better than they do" is ... well ... --GRuban (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * to quote the proverbial comic, "what am I chopped liver?" I was first to create this title, as a redirect to the family section of her admittedly more famous and more public father Varadaraja V. Raman. I started putting together a page on the daughter before anybody else, entered the scene, and everything that is there I would have eventually written myself. The fate of the page ought not depend on the happenstance of my original edit getting obliterated by a page move somewhere in the history. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The fate of the page depends on our arguments here. "The primary author wants it deleted" is not the governing argument, but it is, hopefully, an influential one. "I originally made this page as a redirect, even though you can't see it in the history, and I would have eventually written all this content", ... is also an argument, but, with all due respect, not quite as strong. Had I but world enough and time, I would have written all the Featured articles. --GRuban (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Bluerasberry explains fairly well the potential disparate impacts of denying requested deletion of the attack surface anyone can edit, but I am surprised to see do not think this small, thinly-sourced biography referred to as  is "nice", or in a comment above,  that this subject referred to as  is a "public figure."
 * Where are the interviews? Where is the press? She is an excellent scientist, and has apparently given an interview to a blog. The article is disproportionately built around coverage once in a newspaper for co-presenting a paper at a conference, and a college news report. A faculty website would likely be more balanced and complete, without the security risks, as noted by Bluerasberry, that seem to be largely perceived by women and minorities. Beccaynr (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC) - adjust comment Beccaynr (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think this discussion highlights good-faith disagreements about how to interpret the "relatively unknown" portion of the policy, and as applied here, whether this subject has achieved a level of prominence and notability according to our guidelines to support keeping the article despite the objection. I also recall a previous AfD that seemed to raise a question about whether the various protections Wikipedia can provide are as obvious to article subjects as they may be to regular editors. It may be that more effective outreach to article subjects about how to cope with this website becoming a top result in an internet search could help address various concerns about privacy and security; for now, our case-by-case approach may be obscuring a systemic deficiency in how we communicate available protections for BLP subjects. Beccaynr (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that last comment. I appreciate the recognition of good-faith disagreements. But I want to say more broadly that I think it's important to conduct this AfD discussion based on policies and guidelines, without skewing the discussion with emotional appeals. Attributing opinions such as "it's a nice biography, she shouldn't want it deleted" or "We know better than they do" to editors who have commented in favor of keeping, is to distort what editors have actually said, to the point of caricature. So is implying that editors, who have said that the page does not contain anything in the way of an attack, do not understand sourcing requirements, because the page is "thinly-sourced". (In fact, no one has made a credible argument that the page should be deleted for lack of adequate sourcing, and the sourcing is not unusual for BLPs about similar academic scholars.) And it's not clear to me how much the "primary author" of the page really wants it deleted, because she has also asked for it to be kept and moved into draft space. There is nothing in policy that says that a page that is encyclopedic and notable can be deleted because the editor who started the page requests it, after other editors have edited it. This isn't in user space. Those of us who are making the case for keeping should be able to do so, without being made to sound like we are insensitive or worse. I urge editors to focus on the merits, and not stoop to emotional appeals. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While some of your comment seems directed more broadly to the discussion generally, and not directly to what I have written, to clarify my reference to 'thinly-sourced,' this is an attempt to refer back to my previous mention of the article sourcing as generally primary and nonindependent, in my analysis of the "relatively unknown" part of the policy. It is not a comment on other editors, and certainly not their understanding of sourcing requirements, and is instead my view on how to assess a request for deletion based on available sources. I can think of many article subjects who might request deletion but have robust biographies based on substantial in-depth secondary coverage in independent and reliable sources, and therefore would most likely not obtain consensus for deletion.
 * And I would disagree that discussions about privacy and security are 'emotional appeals,' if that is what is being referred to in your comment - there may be a need for broader community discussions about how Wikipedia can more effectively address issues that may impact certain groups more adversely than others, but this is not intended to cast any editor advocating keep as 'insensitive or worse' - that is why I followed up to emphasize my recognition of the good faith participation in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as clearly notable, someone we surely should have a page on. But gut the article of all the trivia (how many languages her father spoke – what does that have to with the price of fish?), the gratuitous quotes, etc., reduce it to a bare-bones summary of her (considerable) professional achievements. And remove all the poor/inappropriate sourcing, including her own papers and Facebook (yes, really, Facebook!)., if you have some special insight into which aspects of the article have offended the subject you might go ahead and deal with those as a first step – but honestly, I too would be offended if someone had written an article like this about me (which won't be necessary, I have none of those considerable achievements). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with citing her own scholarly science papers, but I agree with the rest. And I think these edits by you and by me largely take care of that:, , , . --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I decided to look back at the history of the deletion and BLP policies, to get a sense of what the community has thought, over time, about the issue of a BLP subject requesting deletion. I found these two, relatively old, discussions:, . (There may be other discussions that I missed, of course.) I think it's clear that there has never been a consensus that, once a BLP subject has indicated a desire to have their page deleted, we must default to deleting the page as was requested. The subject's wishes should be considered, but are not determining. Editors are expected to balance the subject's wishes against notability and the value of the information to the encyclopedia, and administrators are expected to treat these situations as "may delete", but not as "must". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly I would expect discussion participants to comment on whether the subject is notable, not on whether the subject has requested deletion (we already know that). Our BLP policy suggests deletion when there is no consensus on whether the subject meets our notability guidelines. But a comment saying only that the subject has requested deletion and pointing to this policy does not provide any input on whether the subject meets our notability guidelines and cannot be used to determine whether there is consensus on that point. I would hope that the closing administrator would discount all such comments from the determination of whether a consensus exists, and consider them only in the case that (after discounting these comments) the remaining comments fail to reach a consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously. Overriding a subject's wishes not to have an article is one thing, though in this case I consider it a Very Bad one-thing -- BLPREQUESTDELETE exemptions are not/should not be "people we should have a page on in some worthiness sense", but people who are actually famous. Overriding both that subject and the article's creator is just a perverse outcome. Hell, I'd call this a valid G7. Vaticidalprophet 00:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN is a thing though, perverse or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be a clear pass of WP:PROF here on named chair, on citation record, and on fellowship of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The subject is not a publicity-avoidant scientist with no coverage, and has for example given a relatively recent (open-access) interview with photograph to Neuron, an earlier one to the Sainsbury Wellcome Centre blog , and to The Naked Scientists , among others. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ETA I would not be opposed to protecting this article at extended confirmed level if that would be a reassurance to the subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We have no indication whether the subject is concerned about potential changes to the article (so could be reassured), or about its very existence (as suggested by the original deletion proposal). Pam  D  05:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete if the subject (who otherwise is a clear pass of WP:Prof) does not want a BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC).
 * Questions Can you confirm that you are 100% sure the request to remove the article is from herself? And can you give us any indication why she wants it removed, without causing further distress to her? (I realise the answer to q2 is probably "No", but it seems very strange.)  Pam  D  04:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * These requests happen on a regular basis from people who wish to retain their privacy. I support them unless there is good reason not to, which I don't see here. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC).


 * Delete: Let’s do the right thing here, shall we? Innisfree987 (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Since some editors seem to think still not enough has been said here (hrm), I will add that my view was influenced by this subject’s qualification for a biography under an SNG rather than having, as far as I can tell, the WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG. If there were widespread secondary coverage of this biography, I would find it hard to justify removing a summary of that coverage. But in the case of a low-profile person with a strong preference not to have a WP presence, I continue to think inflicting one on them is the wrong thing to do. Happily policy has a provision for accommodating this. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete is the decent thing to do. Interviews in niche professional outlets do not one a public figure make. WP:BLP and WP:DEL are policies, and a careful reading of both shows that they don't apply only to non-notable subjects; obviously, otherwise they wouldn't need to exist, because non-notable subjects get deleted anyway. Also, if notability overrode these policies, it would unfairly disadvantage academics, because WP:NPROF is by design a low notability standard. DFlhb (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I said earlier that this discussion should not be derailed by emotional appeals. And as an editor who advocates for keep, I feel personally affronted by the two comments above. Apparently, I want to do the wrong thing, as well as an indecent thing. Yes, BLP and deletion are policies, but a careful reading of each shows that they both indicate not that there must be deletion, but that there may be deletion. But let's not get distracted by what the policies actually say, because I'm just someone who wants indecency. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I respect you a lot as an editor but I don’t see what this comment adds to the discussion. If you want to avoid emotion, then personalizing it doesn’t help. And talking about what the rules allow versus require isn’t responsive to the issue of what is the right thing to do. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that about me. Criticizing what you said, however, wasn't personalizing the discussion. Your original comment was, in its entirety, "Let's do the right thing here, shall we?" I'm sure you meant that in good faith, but there was nothing in your comment that was based upon policy, or even responsive to earlier "keep" comments. You may sincerely believe that deletion is the "right" thing, but there's no getting around the fact that those of us who have given policy-based arguments for keeping sincerely believe that keeping is the right thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'm just someone who wants indecency" was certainly personalizing the discussion. And BLP and delete are policies that have already been spelled out in this discussion. Your comment added nothing to explain why failing to use them to avoid harm to a low-profile figure is the right thing to do. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Another editor said that deletion was "the decent thing to do". Doesn't that make keeping indecent? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer that.) Surely, a better argument for deletion would have been to cite those policies accurately, instead of claiming "decency" for one "side" of the discussion. I've already done more than most editors to examine how those policies apply here, and I've already explained in some detail why I think those policies point to keeping. Asserting that deletion is the decent thing to do, or the right thing to do, is what adds nothing to the argument based on policies. It just makes an unjustified claim of the moral high ground, which indeed is personalizing the discussion needlessly. I'm just saying that it's not a good argument to claim that one has the moral high ground and other editors do not. If it hurts to have that pointed out, then don't make that kind of argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not hurt. You said you were "personally affronted". I find that needlessly inflammatory, and ironic since you said you objected to emotion. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna let you have the last word. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete this person is only "clearly notable" by the dubious application of NPROF. There's not actually significant secondary sourcing to demonstrate notability per the GNG, so I absolutely don't see an issue deleting per subject request. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE/WP:BLPKIND. - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a remark after two years of reading a lot of AFDs but a sure fire way to get editors arguing to Keep an article is for the article subject to request deletion. For some reason, some editors see that request for deletion as a challenge to Keep an article. I've probably seen a dozen cases of article subjects requesting article deletion and there is never a unanimous response to honor the request and Delete the page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Some editors do, but I don't think it's most, (one unanimous and one almost). Perhaps some editors react the other way too. And perhaps the "subject has opinion" thing sometimes just interests more editors. Or the "afd-notice at User talk:Jesswade88" thing. IMO, it's not unreasonable to want to keep an ok-looking article of this kind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the first time that I've ever participated in such an AfD, as far as I can remember. I certainly don't feel like my reasons can be reduced to feeling like I'm responding to a challenge, and once again, I really wish that this discussion could be held without looking for ulterior motives among those editors who argue for keeping. The implication that, if only this were a more rational situation, there would be a unanimous agreement to delete, is a disservice to what an AfD discussion should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just making a general observation based on my experience reviewing and closing quite a few AFDs, I haven't looked closely at this discussion to see what position individual editors were arguing for or what their reasons were so I would not take my comments personally. All I saw was the deletion nomination and the fact that the discussion is very divided right now. I'm not invested in what happens to this article and if I'm the discussion closer, I'll follow what result I see the consensus of editors says to carry out. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not really considering being the closer after commenting like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually have no opinion on what should happen with this article. But since you have an objection to me taking action, Tryptofish, I'll let another admin handle this discussion. There aren't many of us patrolling AFD these days so it might take a while until this one gets closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Liz, I hope you don't feel that keep comments like mine are intended to treat the BLPREQUESTDELETE as illegitimate in any way. On the contrary, my position is that BLPREQUESTDELETE demands a proper evaluation of whether the subject meets our notability guidelines. If they clearly do, the article should be kept. If the case is borderline or little harm would be done by the deletion, we can and should respect the request. But respecting the request means performing that evaluation of notability, honestly and by the same standards we would apply in any other case, and only after that evaluation has been performed using its outcome to determine what to do, not merely rubber-stamping the request.
 * You write that the discussion seems very divided right now. To my mind, there are two sets of comments: those that perform an evaluation of notability, and those that point to the fact that there is a BLPREQUESTDELETE and we should treat it as a valid request. I do not see a contradiction between those two sets; they are discussing different things, both of which need to be combined in the closer's decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's clear that this subject meets WP:PROF in multiple ways -- they are notable both because of their research contributions, and the recognition they have received for such in academic circles. However, as Beccaynr has carefully noted, this subject is not well known beyond that. BLPREQUESTDELETE, in such situations, acts as something of a catch-all solution to inaccurate information, misrepresentation, and privacy concerns. I don't like that we have to use it, it would be nice if our BLP articles could appropriately "thread the needle" in each of the cases, but it's clear we do need it from time to time. &mdash;siro&chi;o 10:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep but lock. They are neither a public figure or a private one. Google certainly knows a lot about them, and will happily serve it to anyone who knows her name. All the non-Wikipedia results seem to be reliable, relevant and accurate, which is hardly surprising for a person in this position and field. The only way to mitigate the likely cause of their distress therefore, is to ensure Wikipedia behaves more like those other Google results. Accept only edits that on review appear to be relevant and accurate, before thrusting them into the full glare of Google. Edson Makatar (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PROTECT, there are several levels of potential "locking". But for any of them to be considered, there actually have to be a certain degree of disruptive edits in the article's edit-history. Articles aren't protected because stuff might happen. If you know of such disruptive edits, you can ask for protection at WP:RFPP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Certainly articles are already locked down based on what is going to happen, rather than what has happened. It would not therefore be too much of a change to say Wikipedia can and should lock articles when they know their existence is going to cause distress. It is inevitable due to Wikipedia's open editing model that one day the subject's fears will come true, compounding the distress they already feel from knowing it is merely a possibility. This is surely why they object to being on Wikipedia, since it cannot be said they object to being known to Google more generally. Edson Makatar (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple of examples of articles that were locked based on what was going to happen? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , while I don't think locking the article would be within policy in the absence of disruptive edits, I expect that many of the participants in this discussion (at least myself) will leave the article in their watchlists, and that any problematic edits would be quickly reverted. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's commendable Russ, but I seriously doubt that lessens the distress to any great degree. I imagine the subject is smart enough to realize that they aren't famous enough that they can be reasonably sure their Wikipedia biography will be monitored twenty four seven for the rest of their natural life. You certainly resumably need to sleep, work and play, and you will eventually lose interest in Wikipedia. This platform is a live publisher. Any potentially harmful change made to this page is immediately visible to Google, and if it is left here for any significant amount of time, it will also persist in mirrors and scrapes, even if you eventually spot it and remove it. There is very little cost to Wikipedia in giving this person the reassurance that this cannot happen, while retaining the benefit of having this biography remain to ensure the almanac of Academy members is complete. I appreciate this isn't current policy, but until someone suggested it, neither was allowing relatively unknown people an effective opt out from Wikipedia. Edson Makatar (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, author and subject request. While the subject passes WP:PROF, there is no convincing secondary sourcing in the article. —Kusma (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2023 (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.