Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Fletcher


 * 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. The policy appears to be BLPCRIME and no compelling case that this is a public figure has been made. (Being described as like a bishop but not otherwise covered does not seem to be a compelling case and gained little traction in the discussion) Spartaz Humbug! 22:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan Fletcher

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Only decent sources would create an article in violation of WP:BLPCRIME. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and stop all whitewashing. This deletion of properly-sourced content is especially worrying. (Here's a small part of it and this isn't all the abuse:


 * It is "unsourced" negative content that is a BLP concern, not such properly-sourced content. I see a concerted effort to delete properly sourced content about his proven abuses. The parallels to a similar article are interesting, and it is also undergoing whitewashing: John Smyth (barrister). These deletions are improper and reveal an abuse of BLP. We are supposed to document these things if they are mentioned in more than a couple RS, and they certainly are. See WP:Public figure. The number of RS dealing with this makes him a notable public figure. Without that he's just a public figure. This isn't just about one event, but a pattern of abuse over many years. -- Valjean (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Only a torturous reading of WP:PUBLICFIGURE would make someone meet wikipedia's definition of a public figure based on one alleged series of events that is also the sole basis for creating an article. No white washing, just the reality they are neither notable nor notoriousSlywriter (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't "alleged", but proven. Even if only alleged, WP:Public figure is about "alleged". This man's long pattern of abuse made him notable. We're not dealing with someone notable only for a single event. That would be different. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: If anyone can explain to me how this does not meet GNG, I'd like to hear it. There's multiple significant independent reliable sources. As for the content dispute, abuse is not always necessarily a crime, and furthermore WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures. Some say they're not a public figure, but, a Church leader who is considered influential by reliable sources and has been reported on in the media long before allegations of abuse, to me, easily meets the criteria of 1) significant influence, 2) widely of concern to the public, 3) can benefit from their position in society, and 4) and is closely related to public interests in society. –– FormalDude  talk  17:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge as it's found in reliable sources. Therefore, our primary function is inclusionist by nature. We first seek to build and include, not destroy and delete. Content submitted in good faith should be viewed with an eye toward improvement and inclusion, saving deletion as a last resort.
 * Wikipedia has a legitimate and necessary deletion policy, but that does not mean that all proposals to delete an article, aka an AfD, are legitimate. Therefore, editors should ignore all problems with the article and ask themselves only one question: "Does this article pass our general notability guideline (GNG)?" If so, !vote Keep, as that is the only relevant question at an AfD. If the article appears to fail GNG, then ask: "Can it be rescued by finding more RS to establish its notability or otherwise satisfy GNG?" If so, then advocate for that before finally !voting Delete.
 * All other concerns and problems with the article are covered by the editing policy's enjoinment to preserve all content added in good faith. Wikipedia is inclusionist by nature, so editors' first impulse should be to fix, improve, and include. -- Valjean (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * GNG is just a presumption, per "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information., and Notability (people) seems to me to advise against an article of this sort. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the subject is not a criminal, so WP:CRIME is not technically involved. Subject was a senior churchman who committed misconduct, confirmed by an independent review. However, if we take that guideline and replace "crime" with "misconduct", the second of the points for perpetrators from WP:CRIME is met: The motivation for the crime/misconduct or the execution of the crime/misconduct is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
 * I would suggest a clergyman being "engaged in a range of harmful behaviours that have been experienced by a number of people, through demonstrative accounts including a serious sexual act performed in front of another person, spiritual abuse, bullying, coercion and control, naked massages and saunas, and forfeits including smacking with a gym shoe and ice baths" (extract from the independent review, p.89) is extremely unusual and noteworthy. Likewise the coverage he received was sustained and significant. Ephesians511 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep (declaration of interest - article creator) the subject is a senior churchman (many sources describe him as "highly influential" or an "evangelical pope") who committed a range of harmful / abusive behaviours (physical / emotional / sexual / spiritual) over a prolonged period. I would suggest that is notable. He received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so WP:GNG is met. Ephesians511 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in the Telegraph and other RS in article suggest he is notable. Agree with 's explanation. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment my original article was well-referenced and accurately represented the published sources. Some minor BLP concerns were identified, possibly resulting from the misunderstanding that the subject is a criminal, but both before and whilst I was trying to address them, much sourced material was deleted. I agree with Valjean that this was whitewashing. I will continue to try to improve the article whilst the AfD is open, but it is difficult when my edits, made in good-faith and BLP-compliant, keep getting reverted.Ephesians511 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ephesians511, I suggest you userfy the article so you can work on it in peace (Started at User:Ephesians511/Jonathan Fletcher).
 * Since you know the sources better, I have a question for you. Does the "naked massages" referred to imply that it's his nakedness that's the problem? One reference to him getting an erection while giving a massage seems to indicate this. (It's normal/common for the one getting the message to be naked, but not for the one giving the massage, except in an erotic situation. Then it's quite normal.) In other references to nakedness it's pretty obvious it's his nakedness that was seen by some as inappropriate. -- Valjean (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, interesting question... I didn't spot anything in the review where they discussed why certain physical acts were problematic. They just considered that they were unacceptable, and I don't disagree. The real concerns were Fletcher's overall pattern of bullying and coercive control, which manifested in many different ways, not all of them physical, and that he was able to continue unchecked for many years. This next bit is original research, but my feeling is that, if a clergyman was involved in giving/receiving massages, and nothing else, even if both parties were fully clothed, it would still be regarded as improper. That would apply even if one of the parties wasn't a parishioner or similar - it just wouldn't look right, given the potentially sexual nature of the act. If a parishioner was involved, there's also the unequal power dynamic. The only thing that I could see as being OK is if a clergyman received a therapeutic massage from a professional - there might be a few strange looks, but I don't think it would result in disciplinary action! Ephesians511 (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't believe this person is notable outside of the allegations of abuse. This person's prominence also does not satisfy my idea of a public figure to survive a BLPCRIME removal and there are not adequate levels of high quality neutral sources to survive the requirements of WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:REDFLAG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This opinion piece in Christian Today paints a picture of a very public, very influential clergyman and it outright compares him to C of E bishops, which would be public figures per our existing understandings. Regardless of how much scandal to include or not include, the case is pretty convincing that he has been a long-term public figure, and so the debate should be about what to include, rather than whether to have an article or not. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The writer says he's arguably as influential as a CofE bishop, linking to another op-ed he wrote. It was not a statement of fact, it was a single author's statement of opinion, that linked to the author's own opinion for support. If he were actually a public figure there would be some coverage of that before the abuse allegations, and it would be widespread in reliable sources. As it stands, all of the Telegraph sources are by the same author following up on the case, and then niche religious publications after the allegations. The only sources from before the allegations are routine coverage, and an interview with a blogger. In my opinion, that doesn't reach the bar of being a public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Two thoughts: First, it's entirely normal for a single reporter to cover a story longitudinally. Second, "niche religious publications" are precisely where we should expect to see coverage of a notable/public religious figure. Few get mainstream media coverage, but that doesn't stop us from covering them on the basis of religious RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I can sympathise with those who want to keep this article, but BLPCRIME applies here.
 * In this case the subject of the article is the subject of accusations and an internal investigation that upheld those accusations. However he has not been convicted, and there's no way to discuss the inquiry without suggesting that he has committed crimes. While Fletcher apparently had influence within a particular strain of the Church of England, it wasn't significant enough for anyone to write about him in any depth prior to this and he's nowhere near being a public figure.
 * Ultimately we're left with little more than basic biographical details, some routine mentions in local press and Anglican websites, and a huge elephant in the room that we frustratingly can't touch. That doesn't add to up to the significant coverage that GNG requires. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ultimately we're left with little more than basic biographical details, some routine mentions in local press and Anglican websites, and a huge elephant in the room that we frustratingly can't touch. That doesn't add to up to the significant coverage that GNG requires. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Innocent until proved guilty does not apply here, as there has been a ruling by a church court preventing him from ministering as a vicar. However, except that he has been reported in a national newspaper (or its on-line counterpart), there is nothing in the article to make him notable.  As he is now 77, it is likely that he will retire and not be heard of again.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge -- Is there a page about clergy banned from the Church of England that they could be added to? I think that that would be a notable page.Gusfriend (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly Anglican Communion sexual abuse cases. –– FormalDude  talk  20:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is sufficient coverage in RS to pass GNG, which is the only relevant question to ask in an AfD. Any other deficiencies or problems are covered by WP:Preserve, which says we should improve, not delete. There are other options than deletion. -- Valjean (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You already !voted above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops! Striking. -- Valjean (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per and : We DO NOT preserve damaging articles and content against policies and guidelines. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to champion the victims. According to the article lacking a death date, this is a WP:BLP. The relevant policies and guidelines are clear: 1)- The subject has not been convicted, 2)- the notability would rely on accusations, that I imagine would bring in WP:BIO1E as well as WP:BLPCRIME. I presume "clergyman" (parish priest) does not present a presumption of notability by itself. 3)- Even if there was more notability "the statement "Innocent until proved guilty does not apply here", is bewildering. A conviction would follow (I am pretty sure) a verdict of guilty that would present a better argument for inclusion if it received significant coverage.  WP:BLP states in the This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. and in the lead; Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies, and We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Even after all that, especially as long as the subject is living,  this article would be a smear or some agenda in that direction possible needing lifetime protection or sanctions of some sort. I don't see enough net gain to having this article at this time. --  Otr500 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 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.