Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)

Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)

Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Afternoon Radio presenter of limited note - The subject is clearly very very upset about the articles existence and has been complaining for quite some time now, he is posting about it on twitter and has posted one I read in which he comments how our articles existence has detrimentally affected his health - ( I won't post diffs here but they are available at the WP:BLPN thread.) - imo and for the benefit of the subject and the very limited loss the biography would be to the projects mission - we can and should delete this article. - Youreallycan 21:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Neutral - The article is compliant to WP:BLP. Subject has been a presenter on a BBC Radio 4 programme (i.e. a national station, not merely a local station), and has won a major award. Notability, once attained, does not diminish. This is a control issue more than anything. Because the subject of the article cannot control what is in it, he wants it deleted. Wikipedia does not allow subject of articles to say whether or not they get an article (q.v. Sally Boazman). The subject does not want his actual d.o.b. in the article, despite the fact that he freely gives this info out every year when his birthday comes round. Wikipedia has granted him this concession, and his d.o.b. is not mentioned, only the year. I appreciate that one editor in particular wants this info in the article, but I'd advise that editor to drop the WP:STICK over this issue. Mjroots (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Its more than his dob he's complaining about on his radio show and on twitter , its cyber-bullying and the articles continuing existence. Youreallycan 22:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• I find vague handwaves at "cyberbullying" to be unconvincing. Can you provide details as to what precisely means by this? If all it is is "the article exists therefore I feel bullied", that's kinda pathetic, honestly. Tarc (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Check the article talk page and archives. There has been systematic harassment on this. Listen to yesterday's broadcast, where he talks about his experiences and his perception of being bullied by Wikipedia. The distress is obvious. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Say that you have an agreement that your DOB won't be added to an article, perhaps because you've suffered from identity theft in the past, or whatever reason. Suppose now that another person decides that regardless of any agreement the DOB will be added to the article, someone that knows the wikipedia game with 80,000 edits, knows that if they can get it to stick once they'll have won, and every few months or so visits the article and adds the DOB. Suppose that goes on year, after year, after year. What would you call that? John lilburne (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're talking about Pigsonthewing, he's nobody, and will never get his way with this article. I'm not overly concerned about keeping, and if he's a marginal person who requests deletion I'm fine with that. But Pigs here could just as easily be topic-banned form the article to solve that angle of the matter. Tarc (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Its been going on for the last three years and no one has dealt with it. Then there are the other random drive-by nonsense. John lilburne (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a summary of the problems with this article. The article was created in 2006. In 2006, Jimbo courtesy blanked the talkpage over discussions of his birth date and real name [1]. In September 2009, shortly after the subject had had a attempt to correct information in the article and was affected by an semi-edit protection [2], unsourced information about his "real name" and "date of birth" was added.[3]. An IP claiming to be close to the subject deleted this information again saying "Subject wants personal information removed. DOB and Real Name specifically. Subject would like this page to be removed, but if that won't happen then this will do"[4]. Instead of respecting this and despite the WP:BLPpolicy, editors have nevertheless repeatedly tried to include this specific information. User:Pigsonthewing added a birth date deduced on a Twitter comment relating his birthday to the Lenten calendar [5]. This was removed following an OTRS complaint from the subject.[6]. A modified version was restored by Pigsonthewing as a "cited fact - as posted by Hawkins himself" [7] and subsequently removed, restored and removed again by various editors. In March 2010, Pigsonthewing readded the date of birth information based on some further Twittered greetings.[8], which I then removed per a discussion on the reliable sources NB and on the talkpage.[9]. Pigsonthewing once again readded the information [10] and I deleted again per consensus in both places.[11]. Instead of dropping it, Pigsonthewing tried again to get consensus on the talkpage of including the same information, specifically forbidden per BLP and using the same sort of Twitter sources in 2011 and 2012 (see talkpage and archives.) And gets the same reaction from the subject and other editors every single time. I'm sorry to say that Mjroots, who has voted Keep above, has, in my opinion, enabled Pigsonthewing at various times. I was particularly shocked when he suggested in 2010 using a Freedom of information Act request to get hold of Hawkins' exact date of birth via the BBC.[12]. Happily, Pigsonthewing advised again this and there is no sign that this idea was acted on. Also happily my personal observations have been that in the last little while, Mjroots has not supported Pigsonthewing's actions, and in fact has cautioned him directly about of his activities.

All this to say, yes, given this, and further very edits to the talkpage (added, deleted, restored and just recently deleted again) about Hawkins' "real name" I can see that edits related to this article could easily be described as cyberstalking.--Slp1 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it stalking, but it's certainly badgering with no particular encyclopedic purpose. It's pretty clear that Pigsonthewing at least is using the article as a means to bother Hawkins rather than improve the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This works both ways you know, JH has used his twitter page and his radio show to encourage vandalism of Wikipedia, and specifically his article. I raised this with the BBC by e-mail, with the result that they declined to take any action. That said, and in the light of comments added overnight, I'm withdrawing my !vote to enable a WP:SNOWDELETE should an admin think this an appropriate course of action. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Then deal with Pigsonthewing. Malleus Fatuorum 06:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to unilaterally rush in and impose sanction on PoTW. For one, I could be seen as involved here, and secondly, this is something that would probably be better dealt with by uninvolved members of the community. If any editor believes that PoTW's conduct in relation to JH merits close examination, then there are venues to raise it. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see how an article on Hawkins meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. The article is sourced almost entirely from the BBC - his employer - and other primary sources. And with all due respect to the people of Shropshire, I fail to see why an article about one of their radio presenters is either necessary, or even educational. It is little more than a stub/resumé, in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. As the original (anonymous) creator of the article, I saw Jim's inclusion as a recognition of his genuinely strong presence in and involvement in the Shropshire community. He is an iconic and well-loved figure. However, I am appalled to learn of the continuous harassment he has suffered at the hands of a few persistent editors, and I think that it would best to remove this vehicle for what Jim perceives as online bullying. We have badly fumbled the ball on this, even after Jimbo himself felt moved to intervene. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Youreallycan. If a subject requests deletion, and his notability is anywhere near borderline, we should agree, particularly when its existence has caused him distress. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  How can the mere existence of an article cause anyone stress? Malleus Fatuorum 06:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Youreallycan and Andy (edit: and SlimVirgin too). The history of the article is one big mess, and notability is borderline at best.VolunteerMarek 23:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I wrote the following for the first deletion debate on this in 2006(!): "Although I feel the subject is notable enough for an article, I think we should respect subject's wishes not to have an article if they're borderline cases. I'm not going to cite policies or laws on this--it's simple courtesy." My feelings on the matter have not changed, and the community really deserves a bit of shame for keeping this for SIX MORE YEARS when it was clearly causing him unneeded grief. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Enough is enough. JN466 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Likely non-notable anyways, subject request tips it to delete. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The reliable, independent sources about this person are very limited given that he works for the BBC, and these form the bulk of references for these articles. There are some other sources but these are local newspapers or other non-independent sources, such as organizations that have hired him for various projects. In addition, when the subject of a BLP article of marginal notability per our guidelines objects to its inclusion here, then we should pay attention to the subject's wishes. --Slp1 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, essentially per Starblind. I disagree with those saying Mr. Hawkins does not meet our general notability guidelines; I believe he does, from the coverage already in the article. However, there's a difference between meeting our notability guidelines (repeat: guidelines) and being so notable that an encyclopedia would be damaged by not having an article (e.g. Neil Armstrong or Rosa Parks), and that being the case, I think we ought to respect his wishes not to have an article, out of consideration for the obvious anguish this is causing him. 28bytes (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, although not necessarily in the article's current form. It is not for the subjects of BLP's to decide whether or not they meet the notability guidelines, and if we are to make exceptions in this case then we should do so across across the board. Re-work the notablity guidelines if you like, but in the meantime don't pander to cyber-bullying aided and abetted by the BBC. Malleus Fatuorum 06:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and most of the comments above. Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

  I recall a rather similar discussion about Katie Price's article, which at one time mentioned her conviction for shoplifting (maybe it still does, haven't looked), after she requested that it be removed. Wikipedia has either to tough up on BLPs or remove them altogether; it's completely unacceptable for the subjects to dictate the content. Malleus Fatuorum 07:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Carcharoth. Ripberger (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and other comments above. I've felt for a long time that with borderline-notable people, a flexible approach to "opt-out" is a good thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, per King Canute. The subject is asserting on his Facebook page that there are numerous mistakes, but won't say what they are and wants the whole page deleted. But his wishes on inclusion don't come into it (as they would not if he were non-notable and agitating for an article to be included.) He meets the criteria at WP:BIO though clearly he's not an international household name. HOWEVER, this whole situation has been made worse (possible started in the first place) by the terribly bad behaviour and persistent WP:IDHT campaign of Pigsonthewing agitating to get a precise birthdate in. Had he not insisted on this one-pig crusade we might never have got here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• keep BLP is not a sledgehammer to silence opposition. I can't see anything in that article that violates BLP or would even "harass" the subject. There doesn't seem to be a single negative word about him in there. We certainly don't let our subjects dictate how we cover them. What kind of an encyclopedia would we be building then?--Crossmr (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - he seems notable enough to me. He states that the article contains errors, but he's unwilling to identify those errors. His opinion, therefore, is irrelevant - we should not, ever, pander to the personal preferences of BLP subjects. Parrot of Doom 08:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Being a BBC radio presenter is not sufficient for WP:N, and the refs in the article (and lack of sources mentioned here) do not show notability (they show he hosts a radio program and uses Twitter). Receiving some minor award, and being commended and shortlisted, do not amount to notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The award included is sufficient to meet Entertainers or Any biography. Note for closing admin - I see a significant number of contributors expressing opinions to delete who have been directly involved in canvassing off-wiki. They should hang their heads in shame. I can provide evidence off-line for any uninvolved administrator who cannot find this for themselves. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And an hour ago I was thinking that maybe you'd understood something. John lilburne (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone checking your contribution history of pursuing dramah can judge why I'd opt for DENY here. --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No personal squabbles and grudges here, please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Kim Dent-Brown and PoD. Notability is non-negotiable, and deleting biographies at the subject's request is neither policy nor indicated on any other grounds. Notability being established, the article seems well-referenced and uncontroversial in nature, so why would we delete it? --John (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep If the guy really didn't want to be notable (article created in 2005?!), perhaps he shouldn't have a website devoted to himself and his career, nor should he identify his Tweets with a BBC logo pasted over his face. Doc talk 10:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)See, now that is exactly the sort of thoughtless comment that can cause upset for BLP subjects - at least recall that this is a real person, likely reading this discussion. Jeez. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• You may see it as "thoughtless", but I did actually think about it before I typed. Nothing I've said above could "upset" them by pointing out their notability. If you think I was "attacking" him... Jeez yerself ;P Doc talk 11:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• We don't have articles on everyone who has a website, and we don't have articles on all radio presenters. In response to the concern about canvassing, it is far more likely that people are being drawn here by the mentions of this AfD at WP:AN and WP:BLP/N. I saw this article mentioned at both venues, and it was while I was posting at WP:BLP/N about another matter that I saw the AfD mentioned there. Unless Fae goes into details, it will be difficult to judge what the relative effects are of this and the off-wiki mentions he seems to be referring to. Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable. This AfD reminds me somewhat of the Giovanni di Stefano AfD in which a public figure requested their article be removed because they didn't like its content, even though it was very well referenced to material already in the public domain. As long as this article is properly sourced to reliable sources (and the current version of the article looks that way), then I can't see a reason for deleting. If there is stuff in the edit history that violates WP:BLP, it can be selectively deleted. Number 57 10:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The principle of "do no harm" applies. Is including things like his birthdate doing harm when he advertises it himself? NO. Is the existence of an article doing harm? NO, because he has a website, etc that promotes his exploits. Does it appear to be that his sole anger is because he cannot control the contents of an INDEPENDENT encyclopedia? Yes. His complaints about dob, etc are mere red herrings, which he's using as personal fodder against the institution of Wikipedia. Somewhere we need to add "control freak" to his article, and it's apparently well-sourced (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • And throwing phrases around like "control freak" is your way of keeping to the 'do no harm' principle? You had almost persuaded me up until that point, when I realised you seem to be using this discussion to make some sort of point. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Struck. I perhaps don't see that phrase with the same negative connotation as you apparently do - I'm one myself at times, and admit it freely. With the potential that others have the same negative view of the phrase, I'll happily retract (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is clearly notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Personal attack / accusation against article subject removed. This is not acceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)