There's a lot going on in this discussion. I'll try to cover most of the major points, in no particular order.
WP:CSD is for uncontroversial cases. There's more than enough discussion here, with people weighing in on both sides, that it's clear this was not uncontroversial. Hence, the overturn. Of course, it's not always clear at the time whether there will be controversy or not. In this case, the original WP:CSD decision was probably not unreasonable.
Some of the factors that went into the original CSD decision were WP:BLPDELETE, and the WP:OTRS involvement. There's no clear consensus here as to how much weight those things should carry. Some people feel that in WP:BLP cases, we should give strong weight to the subject's request to not have an article about them. Other people feel that as long as WP:CSD is met, their request should not be a factor. Some people feel it should only be a factor when trying to resolve a close call.
WP:G4 probably didn't apply by strict reading, but there's also some feeling that WP:IAR and/or admin's discretion could have also justified WP:CSD. No consensus on that point. There is, however, a pretty good feeling that a better closing statement, with a more detailed justification, would have been useful, even if it wouldn't have changed the ultimate outcome.
WP:BLPDELETE talks about gaining a new consensus to restore a previously deleted article, but gives no advice about where to gain that consensus. Two reasonable places would be bringing the issue here to WP:DRV, or starting a new draft and using the draft's talk page.
Several people argued that there were sufficient sources in the new version of the article that it would probably pass WP:GNG. No real consensus on that point.
As in most of these cases, it's hard to tease apart the discussion about the process from the discussion about the merits of the article itself. And, the answer is always the same; WP:AfD is a better forum to discuss the merits of the article. So, I'm going to list the draft at AfD.
This was nommed for speedy, which I (as the author) objected to on its talk page, on the basis that G4 explicitly excludes articles that "are not substantially identical to the [previously] deleted version". User:Tagishsimon removed the speedy template, noting that Cole is "copper bottom notable". It has now been speedied as G4, and the deleting admin has refused to restore it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The page was speedy deleted as G4 by Fram. An earlier version of the article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations) in November 2014. The article deleted by Fram was a fresh creation, substantially different from the 2014 version. G4 states that "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and speedy deletion was not appropriate. In addition, it is abundantly clear from the substantial coverage of Cole in the many sources present that he meets WP:GNG and the article should be restored. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I in vain made clear to both editors, this deletion was done under WP:BLPDELETE. An article that ha sbeen courtesy deleted at the request of the BLP subject should not be recreated until there is a consensus to do so. "After the deletion, any administrator may choose to protect it against re-creation. Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation." I don't blame anyone for recreating the page anyway, as they probably weren't aware of this clause, nor do I blame anyone for complaining about my G4 deletion, which at first sight doesn't apply (but which I used since no numbered speedy reason for BLPDELETE recreations exists, and G6 seemed even less informative). But I don't get why they still complain about the deletion after it has been pointed out to them that the article should not have been recreated in the first place, per BLP policy (which trumps all other policies in this regard). The editors are free to seek consensus that an article on Cole may be created, as explained in the policy: but overturning this deletion because the subject meets the GNG shows a particular misunderstanding of our policies and the priorities amongst them. Fram (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This argument might make sense if there were any venue available to seek a consensus to recreate an article. There isn't. This part of the BLP policy plainly does not match practice, since it is common for articles that have been deleted (often as WP:TOOSOON) to be re-created some time later. A deletion at the request of the BLP subject is the weakest reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #Non-criteria no.17), and certainly has no special standing requiring that the article should not be recreated until there is a consensus to do so any more than any other article.
More importantly, BLPDELETE is not a speedy deletion criterion, as the the deleting admin admits. Speedy deletion is for pages "with no practical chance of surviving discussion" (WP:CSD) – and that's policy. It is quite clear that the article that Fram deleted was not a "re-post" (alias for db-G4) of the 2014 article, and that Cole is notable as attested by substantial coverage in nine sources. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the article is neutrally written and on a clearly notable subject, so our fundamental policies of notability and neutral point of view are met. If Fram wants to argue that there is sufficient other policy to override those policies, then they should take it to AfD. It is a misuse of the trust placed in an admin to apply speedy deletion in cases where an article is not an obvious breach of our content policies. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:BLPDELETE. Following a request from the article subject through OTRS, the article was deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations). It should therefore not have been recreated without consensus. As a technical point, I think it is correct that the CSD cited in the deletion summary (G4) did not apply, but nevertheless the article should remain deleted until such time as a consensus can be shown for its recreation. The whole point of WP:BLPDELETE is to prevent recreation without consensus. WJBscribe(talk)17:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while the text and the specific references may be different this time around, the basic substance is generally of a low-profile individual who is unlikely to generate substantial complaint of bias or censorship if he didn't have an article here. Find a more substantial article to edit, and improve that. Unless this Michael Cole suddenly somehow becomes sustained front-page news for several months, the status quo should remain. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but those constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is what is required for notability. Your "suddenly somehow becomes sustained front-page news for several months" doesn't form part of any requirement for notability on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The logged reason of G4 was not applicable. To establish consensus for the full reinstatement of the page, it will help to have the new draft visible. This might sensibly be done by putting the page into draft space, say, while a discussion takes place. Andrew D. (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just clarify the custom and practice here? Do we always delete people's biographies if they request it via OTRS? Or is there some kind of threshold where people are so significant that we keep the article about them irrespective of their wishes, and if so, what is it? In fact, can anyone cite an example of an article where the subject has requested deletion and Wikipedia's refused?—S MarshallT/C18:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: The other person featured in the Daily Mail article, Graham McCann. Endorse. I also did not see indubitable notability in Pigsonthewing's article on Michael Cole. Unlike with McCann, I believe Cole is only borderline notable, and that we should therefore continue to honour his wish, as per BLPDELETE and the former AfD (at which the creator of the earlier article advocated deletion). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if an individual with the nine sources I gave above is "borderline-notable", that would in itself disqualify it from speedy deletion, which is reserved for pages "with no practical chance of surviving discussion" (WP:CSD). There are no policy grounds to endorse a speedy deletion on the claim of "borderline notability". --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: I support a draft version, otherwise we can't discuss. - Years ago, I wrote (in German) an article about a scientist who then wanted it deleted, and he was told (not by me) that as long as it all was based on solid sources (and it was), his wish didn't matter. More recently, project opera stuggled with a conductor who wanted to shape "his" article according to his wishes, which was also declined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Yngvadottir for that response which has thoroughly clarified this for me. There is no way this person qualifies as a WP:LPI. Absolutely not. Therefore what we do as Wikipedians is to have a discussion about a draft. What's happened here is a sysop has summarily deleted the draft and thereby preventing the discussion from happening. The right thing to do is to restore the draft to an unindexed space, so it won't show up on google searches but it'll allow good faith editors the chance to make their case. At that discussion I will !vote "delete", but in the circumstances it's right that the discussion should take place. Restore to enable this outcome.—S MarshallT/C18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Cole is a household name in the UK, from his long years as a royal correspondent. He is clearly notable. The article freshly deleted was well referenced, and the references demonstrated a GNG pass. Could we now restore the recently deleted article and stop playing silly bugger procedural games. Relying on an AfD which appears to have been swayed by the subject's more than ironic reluctance to be the subject of an article, and at which only three or four people chipped in, is plain daft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore or draft: This this person clearly meets WP’s standards for notability. There is no question that WP:BLP requires us to “get it right,” and to some extent a person has a certain right to privacy, where they have been a public person who made public statements, WP:GNG applies. The OTRS he sent that was copied at the previous AfD is undated, and I am unclear if it was sent in response to the first-created article or this newer version; I would like that issue clarified, if Fram or an OTRS person could verify that info. Montanabw(talk)20:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore According to Fram, An article that ha sbeen courtesy deleted at the request of the BLP subject should not be recreated until there is a consensus to do so. It's going to be hard to get such consensus if we cannot see the article in question, but there is a strong indication from several users above that the subject is not an LPI and should not be able to have his article deleted by his own request. Lepricavark (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it was a quote because it wasn't in quotation marks. At any rate, I acknowledge the distinction between a policy and an essay, and the policy certainly holds sway. Still, I don't know if we can really establish consensus without being able to review the article. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to reply "what do you mean, it clearly was in quotation marks!", but checking it again, I see that you quoted my rephrasing of the policy (so that phrase was indeed "according to Fram" and not a quote), and I misspoke in my reply here. having said that, I don't see how it is any different from what the actual quote immediately following it says "it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation." so the point remains the same. Fram (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A notable person, outspoken, not a private individual. However, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations) people chose to honour the subject's request. An invalid G4. WP:BLPDELETE is a very loose bit of policy at odds with the opening line at WP:CSD "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion". The BLP policy is inadequate on this point, BLPDELETE lacks objective criteria. It should be moved to WP:CSD and written objectively. The appeal for privacy is kind of odd, there should be a mechanism for challenging the old AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When policies disagree (which they often do), I always tend to give BLP the priority. I choose G4 as it was the most closely related speedy reason, perhaps I should just have stated "IAR speedy deletion per WP:BLPDELETE" without indicating any CSD criterion, but at least G4 indicated that it was an article previously deleted after an AfD, so gave people some indication of why it was deleted. As for challenging old AfDs, that's what DRV can be used for, no? "Deletion Review may be used: if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" which is more or less what is claimed here (either that or they challenge the original AfD outcome). A DRV about the original AfD, with the request to be allowed to create a new page (or undelete the old one) would be perfectly acceptable and wuold follow the letter and spirit of the policy. A recreation of the page without such a discussion "because the subject is notable" (which they were at the time of the AfD, no new notability has happened since then) on the other hand goes directly against the conclusion of the previous AfD and against the policy. Fram (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you did bad, but that WP:CSD needs updating. BLPDELETE enjoys consensus, but it could be more objective, and connected to CSD. So BLPDELETEd means no user may unilaterally recreate? Sounds like something that should be written. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could indeed do with some clarification, and like I said, I don't blame anyone who has written the article anyway, as people can hardly be expected to know every in and out of these policies, certainly for cases like this which are luckily rare. Perhaps in the future it would be better if people who deleted articles at the BLP request (and with consensus, like here) automatically protected the page, to prevent these situations. Fram (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] There's an obvious disparity between your "...I always tend to give BLP the priority" and your earlier assertion on my talk page, that "the BLP policy trumps speedy deletion reasons". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the disparity? Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Motion_regarding_BLP_deletions: "That Wikipedia, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment; and That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.". BLP is a core principle and policy, CSD is a policy t maintain other policies like BLP (and copyvio, ...). As the BLP policy trumps speedy deletion reasons, I tend to give BLP the priority. Fram (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
overturn not a G4 and a discussion needs to be held as it doesn't meet any speedy criteria. Agree that it could have been protected, but it wasn't and you can't go back and delete it without a basis in WP:CSD for doing so. Futher, it's not at all clear that a solid article on this subject can't exist. So we should discuss. Hobit (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the article was deleted at AfD because the subject asked for it to be deleted and we decided to honour that request. There was nothing in the recreated article which would justify reopening that discussion - although the text was different it conveyed essentially the same information and didn't cite any sources published since 2014. The only new information in the article was that the subject once gave a lecture and wrote a column for a local newspaper, and those would have made no difference whatsoever. There are mechanisms for challenging the results of BLP deletions, recreating the page without improvement just isn't one of them. While it doesn't technically fall under G4 I do nevertheless think that the deletion was common sense. Hut 8.521:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The date of the material cited is relevant because it means he hasn't become any more important since the AfD. If there was substantial source coverage generated since then you could argue that he is now more important than when the decision was made and that therefore the decision should be revisited. There isn't. Although the text and description of the subject has changed the changes are in details of the subject's life rather than anything major. For instance the old article said that he worked as a BBC journalist for a long time and noted one of his assignments. The new version noted that he worked as a BBC journalist, gave his dates of service and noted a different assignment. Yes, the information is different, but it's still the same journalistic career. Hut 8.507:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the 2014 version that was deleted with the re-created version from today, we can see that the seven earlier sources were mainly concerned with the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Tiny Rowland's battle with Mohamed Al-Fayed, wherein Cole is not the main focus. The new version contains three of the earlier sources (Cole's homepage, Boggan's report on Cole leaving Harrods, and Pankhurst's report on the Diana inquest), but introduces six new sources relating to Cole's time at the BBC, as a reporter during the Yom Kippur war, his lecture to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and his appearance on Have I Got News for You. Most of them are substantial pieces of coverage where Cole is the prime subject (or one of three principals in the Yom Kippur war case). I am really having great difficulty in understanding how you can possibly consider that those six new sources do not dramatically enhance Cole's notability compared to the previous version. --RexxS (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "Yom Kippur" source[1] is definitely not about him, he is mentioned once as "a "he was also there". Then there are two primary sources about a speech he gave, a database mention in TV.com which may or may not be about him or about another Michael Cole, which leaves us with 2, not 6, sources whch can be said to be "substantial coverage". One is from a newspaper where he writes a column, so not independent coverage either (and is not about him, but about the problems at the BBC). This leaves you with one new article, [2] which deals with the same subject as an article already in the deleted version, him stepping down as spokesperson of Harrods. So no, these "six new sources" actually do nothing at all to "dramatically enhance Cole's notability". Fram (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "Yom Kippur" article attests to Cole's work as a reporter. That enhances his notability. The first source about the lecture he gave to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a report about the event, definitely not a primary source. In the second source about the event, Cole is given first billing before Vernon Bogdanor and Bill Cash, a certain indication of notability that was not present in the early version. The website charting his appearance on Have I got News for You also links him to his appearance on It Shouldn't Happen to A... Royal Reporter. I suppose you'll be telling us next that it was some other Michael Cole who also happened to be a royal reporter? That's yet another fresh source indicating his notability. Then we have the other two sources: the first an entire newspaper article about Cole's experiences during his years at the BBC; the second the BBC's article about Cole's career as he retired from the post of Director of Public Affairs that he had held for 10 years at Harrods. Those really do constitute considerable coverage about Cole and were not present in the former version. It is abundantly clear, no matter how much you want to minimise it, that a substantial number of new sources have been introduced into the article, including two which would guarantee a pass at WP:GNG in virtually any other article. This proves my contention that the G4 criterion "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" applies here. The latest version of the article was never a candidate for deletion as a G4 speedy, and however BLPDELETE may be interpreted, it is not licence for an admin to delete the new article without discussion. This deletion review has no option based in policy and common sense but to overturn the G4 CSD. --RexxS (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)You have an extremely low bar for "enhances his notability", one which is not in line with WP:N at all. "The first source about the lecture he gave to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a report about the event, definitely not a primary source." The definition is "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." The source involved is [3], i.e. the Parliament website reporting on a speech delivered to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Branch, a grouping of Parliamentarians which is listed as one of the three "offices" at the Parliament website. This is a primary source, and definitely not an independent source, so gives zero notability. "In the second source about the event, Cole is given first billing before Vernon Bogdanor and Bill Cash, a certain indication of notability that was not present in the early version." There are two speakers, and they are given in order of appearance, not in order of notability. You are really grasping at straws here. That source is a reprint of the press release, the flyer linked in it[4], so again not an independent source and not giving any notability
You are particularly uncritical when you use TV.com. "The website charting his appearance on Have I got News for You also links him to his appearance on It Shouldn't Happen to A... Royal Reporter. I suppose you'll be telling us next that it was some other Michael Cole who also happened to be a royal reporter? That's yet another fresh source indicating his notability." You "forgot" to mention that that source connects him to three roles: [5] Have I got news for you, It shouldn't happen to (which you use as evidence that it must be the same person), and ... The One: Making a Music Star, an American reality show from 2006 which indeed features Michael Cole. Our royal reporter masqueraded as a 22-year-old from North Carolina though. This site not only doesn't give any notability, but is an unreliable site which shouldn't be used (similar to IMDb), and which is clearly not to be trusted in this specific case. Please be a lot more careful when analyzing sources.
Finally, you are still basing all of your claims on the mistaken idea that I deleted this because of a lack of notability. I didn't, as has been explained to you many times now. Whether the article should be permitted to be created now or not may be based on issues of notability and subject wishes, but the deletion was based on the combination of the previous deletion and WP:BLPDELETE. Fram (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think analysing the depth of coverage in the available sources is the right way to go with situations like this. The major reason the article was deleted is because the subject asked for it. We're allowed to grant those requests as long as the subject isn't a public figure, even if they are notable, and many editors will support deletion in those circumstances if the subject's importance falls below some threshold which is higher than notability. Source coverage doesn't have that much to do with this judgement. For example an MP would definitely be considered a public figure, even if nobody has heard of them and they don't get that much press coverage. Looking at the actual achievements of this person's life described in the recreated article there is very little change from the AfDed version. He had a long career as a journalist for the BBC and covered some high profile events. The sources may go into different levels of detail and cover different aspects of that career, but the general idea is the same. What would substantially change the situation here is if the recreation included some new, more important career achievement, but it didn't. Finally, I should emphasise that the reason the subject wanted the article deleted is that there were serious factual inaccuracies in the available sourcing, including ostensibly reliable sources. That concern is very well founded within the spirit if not the letter of the BLP policy, and could lead to substantial real world repercussions for the subject or for Wikipedia. Anyone trying to recreate the article needs to address it very carefully. Hut 8.520:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because there is no actual notability. Of course a PR agent will sometimes get their name in the papers when their client does. As for the views of the subject, the accepted rule in Deletion Policy is that we only take them into account if the decision in no--consensus, where it is at the discretion of the closing admin to have them result in deleting the article instead of the otherwise default keep; we normally do not consider them otherwise. In this case, where there is no real reason given beyond personal preference, I would see no reason to honor the request even were it a no-consensus. Looking at the various versions, I see nothing that might possibly be libel, though I do see in earlier version some material that should have been, and was removed as trivial. But he simply isn't notable and there shouldn't be an article even if he wanted one. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble: I am able to find reliable sources where the subject, as an ex-BBC correspondent, is making public comments on matters of public interest. Definitely "borderline notable" at least, and not "simply isn't notable". NB. There are a number of public "Michael Cole"s, including multiple journalists. I endorse because the decision was properly make at AfD, and there is no strong case to change it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The claim that "there is no actual notability" is utter bullshit, as the citations listed above show. There are multiple grounds for passing GNG. This is, for example, a journalist who was first a BBC war correspondent and then a BBC royal correspondent, commentating on a royal wedding from inside Westminster Abbey; a panellist on a BBC satirical show; and someone who gave, by invitation, a significant lecture in the Palace of Westminster. But the contested speedy deletion was not made on the grounds of notability, and that can be determined subsequent to the article's proper reinstatement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits23:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to quote the same reviewer, Record Collector's Marco Rossi: "Mabbett's unquestioned Floyd expertise… makes for a largely engaging read. Commendably, his passion for the band doesn’t blind him to their less distinguished moments, and his assessment of the makeweight atrocities which blight A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, for example, is spot-on. Or their Michael Heatle: "…of five talking heads [on the Whatever Happened To Pink Floyd? DVD]... Andy Mabbett [is] the most knowledgeable". Oh, and get your facts straight. The work described as "frustratingly inconsistent" was not mine, but that of my publisher; the book's layout. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Clearly notable per sources. We should not confuse significance with notability per Wikipedia standards. Further, per DGG, the subject's personal preference is not reason to delete.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Overturn. The cited language from BLPDELETE must be read in its proper context, following the key language Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. This is not such a case. In any event, the article clearly failed to meet the G4 criteria, or any other speedy deletion criteria. BLPDELETE, on its own terms, does not authorize speedy deletion without a showing that the article at issue continues material which even arguably fails BLP standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misinterpreting the policy here. The "key language" is about the initial deletion: in such a case like this (subject request), no speedy should be used but a full AfD discussion. This has happened and ended in deletion. So that step has already been taken, and we are now no longer at the start of that policy section, but at the final line: after such a deletion, such an article (subject request) should not be recreated without prior consensus. The question is whether a page created (unknowingly) in direct contradiction to the BLP policy can be (should be) immediately deleted again or not. If it may not be deleted in such a case, then the last line of BLPdelete should be removed as it has become meaningless. But in my reading (and that of at least some other editors here), that line does allow or encourage the speedy deletion of the article. TLDR: the "proper context" is not "summary deletion of poor article", but keeping an article deleted after AfD on subject request deleted as prescribed by the end of the policy section. Fram (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that "should not be recreated" is the same as "will be speedy deleted". There are lots of things one _should_ do (WP:BEFORE for example) that don't result in an outcome like this without discussion. If the goal here is to have such a recreation be automatically subject to speedy deletion, I'd suggest proposing that at WP:CSD. Hobit (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have moved the article to draft space - Draft:Michael Cole (public relations) - which which allow more informed discussion on the content. My own view is that it should be sent back to AfD for discussion there. Speedy deletion is only appropriate for uncontroversial deletions, which this is clearly not. The correct forum to decide whether this article should exist is AfD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Obviously notable going by the sources provided. There's no reason under the sun why WP shouldn't have an article about this individual. It seems the only reason why the subject requested deletion was because the article was riddled with errors which he couldn't be bothered to point out. Otherwise, an outspoken individual for whom a request for 'privacy' should not be entertained. There should be a brief article with correct and reliably sourced facts. 103.6.159.91 (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hard case, because "sufficiently/substantially identical" could be interpreted in many ways. You could make the argument that G4 does apply because it was previously deleted at AFD after a consensus formed that notability was borderline and thus WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST was applicable. While the new creation did add more sources and new content, you could argue that it still fails to address the cause of deletion (i.e. it failed to address why BLPDELETEREQUEST should not apply), and so isn't substantially different. Given the additional sources in the draft, the low number of !voters in the first AFD, and the many voices calling for the article to be kept here, it seems endorsing the deletion but restoring and sending it to AFD with a nomination statement noting the BLPDELETEREQUEST situation would be best. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions14:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (clarified position on the original G4 deletion.00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reasonable way in which "sufficiently/substantially identical" can apply. The article under discussion has the same subject as the one previously deleted, but has none of the original content, and was written without reference to the earlier article's content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article is rewritten, but the content covered is almost entirely the same as the deleted version. The only new content not covered in the previous version is Cole being sent by the BBC to cover the Yom Kippur War and Cole giving a lecture to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's UK Lunchtime Lecture Series. The former isn't anything out of the ordinary for a journalist, and the source literally only name drops Cole. The latter is a dime a dozen speech that all kinds of people deliver at similar events, and is only sourced to primary sources that don't indicate why that speech should stand out from any other. If kept, some of the material from the previous version, which help support notability, should be re-added.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions20:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look forward to you telling a war correspondent to their face that their work "isn't anything out of the ordinary for a journalist", but you contradict yourself by saying "the content covered is almost entirely the same", and then listing some of the several differences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits20:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A journalist doing journalist things is admirable, but not automatic grounds for notability. The source for that is literally an article that just says he was there, and the talks for the lecture are all primary sources that don't explain why it should stand out among the hundreds, if not thousands of similar lectures that happen every day. Neither the new content or the new sources indicate why the subject is notable. In fact, I think the previous draft does a better job of that. The G4 deletion was correct based on the outcome of the AFD, but given how additional discussion at this DRV is going, recreation should be allowed (and a subsequent AFD if necessary). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions21:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since no-one claimed that "A journalist doing journalist things is automatic grounds for notability", your comment appears to be a straw man. I'm amazed to learn that there are "hundreds, if not thousands of lectures every day" hosted by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the Palace of Westminster; perhaps someone ought to write a Wikipedia article about that phenomenon. Oh, and you're still only discussing some of the new information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one claiming that adding such content should be enough to invalidate a G4 deletion. Adding content to an article that a journalist engaged in journalism, when the subject is already identified as a journalist, is not a substantial difference that would make a G4 deletion invalid. People also give similar lectures to a large number of respectable institutions: universities, museums, government bodies, NGOs, longstanding university clubs, academic conferences etc. With only primary sources which say that such a talk took place, it doesn't explain why this talk should stand out. As for other new information, there's only writing a column for a local paper, which also doesn't establish notability. Cole's testimony at the inquest was mentioned indirectly (and the same source used), and so was considered in the previous version deleted after AFD. The initial G4 deletion was valid, but preventing recreation when that deletion proves controversial isn't valid under CSD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions15:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just look through this thread. You're arguing that the G4 was invalid because the inclusion of this new information meant it wasn't substantially the same. Having new content (text or sources) is the primary reason for declining or overturning a G4. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Poppycock. New information, pre-dating the previous AfD, has come to light, giving greater evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC) " Presumably the "new information" Patar knight is talking about is the "new information" you claimed had given "greater evidence of notability". So, what exactly did you mean by "new information"? Fram (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep, clearly notable, well sourced and not a violation of any rule at WP:BLP. Deleting BLPs at the request of the subject is a very bad idea, for numerous reasons. —Locke Cole • t • c17:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Fram's explanation. We cannot fault admins for enforcing the BLP, and Fram is absolutely right. G4 was probably the best choice, given this gap in policy. Endorse recreation as well, as this discussion serves well enough as the required discussion per the policy. A proper process needs to be created for this situation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
overturn restore to draft and have a proper AFD discussion. The BLPDELETE is a poor piece of policy working against the purpose of Wikipedia, and it needs rewriting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
