Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WYNGARDE PETER (Authorised Biography)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete Please note, this page also appears to have multiple copy paste copyvios from IMDB. — xaosflux  Talk 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:WYNGARDE PETER (Authorised Biography)


Content fork of Peter_Wyngarde. Also violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP. Additionally, content creator has been blocked for making legal threats. Kosh Vorlon  15:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as utterly unworkable. Even if we had no article about him, this could not possibly be the basis of an article in mainspace - full of original research, point of view commentary, unsourced or unverifiable claims etc - not to mention the whole concept of an "authorised biography" is complete anathema to Wikipedia. I'm the one who blocked the editor behind this for WP:NLT, incidentally, but that is irrelevant - the draft would need deletion even if the editor was not blocked. BencherliteTalk 17:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as content fork, and not even close to being accepted. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, though not as an article or article draft. Clearly, looking at the history of contributions, the subject, as represented by his "closest friend for 30 years" has an issue with his Wikipedia biography, and this draft is essentially his latest response.  Most pertinent is the thread Talk:Peter_Wyngarde.
 * I vaguely recall long ago a discussion on the "rights" of subjects to influence their Wikipedia biography. Can't find it at the moment.  I think that there is no "right", beyond insisting on WP:BLP, incorporating use of only reliable reference and WP:NPOV, etc, things already in policy that don't depend on the status of the objector.  Connected people are encouraged instead to raise their concerns on the article talk page. This "Authorised Biography" is connected to that and should be respected as such.  I think, Move to Talk:Peter Wyngarde/subject's representations.  The content, as a talk page submission is unobjectionable, but as it is long a subpage is appropriate.  I assume that Talk Space continues to be unindexed by search engines, and that only Wikipedians accessing that talk page will find it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete a content fork of an established article, written by someone with a close association with the subject, which is completely unsuitable for mainspace - the tone is unencyclopedic, it includes extensive amounts of original research, personal observations and peacock terms, and in large part consists of a complete list of every role the subject has ever performed in. The only way we could justify keeping something like this is if it was at all helpful for continuing development of the article, and I can't see how it would be. Wikipedia is not a tool for self promotion. If someone has concerns about the accuracy of the article we have in mainspace then there are other mechanisms for those to be addressed.  Hut 8.5  21:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and move' per user:SmokeyJoe. Nthep (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I know we can't keep or move this article, it violates BLP first and foremost and even if it were moved, it would, in it's current state, still violate BLP. Further, it will still be a content fork, so moving it out of article space wouldn't change that. We already have a sourced article on Peter Wyngarde, so we don't need this one. I see no reason to keep it, not even for IAR sake. Also, as far as I'm aware, since no one owns any article, no one has a "right" to influence their biography except that which is afforded to any contributor, that the sources be reliable, that it be written neutrally, etc....   Also, Filbert007 is not the subject of the biography but , per his admission, writing on behalf of Peter Wyngarde.   There's no way this draft could or should be moved into userspace, talkspace, or article space for any reason considering it violates BLP.   Sorry Smokey, but this article needs to be deleted.  Kosh Vorlon   11:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Violates BLP" is a big claim, and one I don't see. However, there is a lot of material, perhaps the many references overwhelm the eye and somewhere in there is a negative unsourced statement?  Can you please point out the violations?
 * In the absence of substantiation of BLP-violation claims, I maintain that this is a justified subject response appropriate for recording in talk space or userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Having unsourced, non-verifiable claims in a BLP automatically violates BLP. There's no way this article can be kept.  Kosh Vorlon   12:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've looked it over again and do not find "unsourced, non-verifiable claims". I think you are practicing BLP zealotry.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's a proposed draft for the mainspace version that was rejected. Normally we would redirect that to the mainspace version and move on but, regardless of how many people care, WP:BLP applies to drafts as well and thus it should be deleted. If someone removes the BLP violating statements and wants to redirect the remainder, fine but there is no reason to keep this around or to move it to mainspace or whatever else people imagine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was mistakenly submitted as a "proposed draft", and it should not have been. Reactionary deletion to that is clumsily dismissive of representations of the subject's representative.  Please read Biographies_of_living_persons, where it is even a bolded statment of policy that "Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a mistaken submission. Talk:Peter_Wyngarde is clear: this is a series of proposed changes to the mainspace one that were rejected. It's a proposed draft to rewrite the article with no interest in any of it. If even a portion was taken from here to mainspace, that would require attribution to this page and a redirect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.