Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Cowley


 * 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   Speedily deleted per criterion A7 (deleted by JamesBWatson). (Non-admin closure)  ∙:∙:.:  pepper  :.:∙:∙   18:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Les Cowley

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nomination on behalf of Ato679, who attempted to nominate it for deletion but mangled the nomination; I'm creating a new nomination after having deleted the original one. Ato679's rationale for nomination is as follows: '''Entry made without the knowledge of the subject. Entry was inaccurate. Entry is disparaging in that it does not give a fair and balanced description of the subject.''' Since I'm nominating for procedural purposes, I'm neutral here. Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is an odd one. A user, User:Ato679, has his hair on fire about deleting this page. He claims to speak for the subject, and that the subject doesn't want the article to exist. Of course we are inclined to look upon such request very favorably per the spirit of BLP. But there's nothing in the article that is remotely disparaging. It's just an anodyne description of a person who wrote a software program. But whatever, its not referenced and the person doesn't seem that notable, so...
 * Delete, unreferenced BLP, notability not established. (The page is, technically, not eligible for immediate deletion on BLP grounds, I think, because it was created in 2008, and it doesn't disparage or contain contentious informantion.) Herostratus (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment.   "A user, User:Ato679, has his hair on fire about deleting this page."  That comment is not helpful nor called for. Ato679 initiated an orderly deletion nomination according to Wiki procedures.   Ato679 is the subject and was made aware of this entry only recently.  That the entry was made three years ago does not seem relevant to its possible lack of accuracy or presence of misleading material.    The biographical entry was made without the subject's knowledge.   The contents are biased and innaccurate.   The contents are disparaging in that they do not present a fair and balanced view of the subject.   The subject does not wish a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ato679 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, by "hair on fire" I just meant "is upset about"; this is an American idiom, no disrespect intended. Now, and I've asked you this before: what, exactly, in the article is unfair, unbalanced, or disparaging? Is the subject not a retired professor? Did he not write the software program HaloSim? Is he not noted for his explanation of optical phenomena? Or what? If you could explain what is "disparaging" you would gain a much more sympathetic audience. While we are sympathetic to the requests of living persons, just saying "This article is about me, and I will have it gone, period" is not enough, if the article is accurate, not unsympathetic, and the subject is notable. We are tasked here with providing information on notable entities. Give us something to work with here, please. Herostratus (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Since writing that I have looked back at the article. I see no claim of importance: just a description of someone who has a PhD and writes software. I am going to speedily-delete it under CSD A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable under the circumstances, I think. You need to close this AfD, and it might be reasonable to check with the user if he wants the article history oversighted. Herostratus (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2010 (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.