Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Glover (2nd nomination)

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 keep.

The discussion here gives rise to no consensus to delete, in fact there is nothing remotely approaching such a consensus. Indeed, for the following reasons, the consensus is to keep. None of the delete !voters have argued that the subject fails any accepted inclusion standards (such as WP:BIO). The argument on the delete side is that the article should be deleted because of the harm it is causing the subject. That argument has, to a large extent, been refuted by the more numerous keep !votes who have questioned whether deletion is, at this stage, an appropriate and proportionate solution to the harm. That refutation hasn't been answered. Editors have recognised the changes to the article and adminstrative actions that have taken place during the course of the AfD to try to address the harm.

Our deletion guidelines for administrators say:

When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion.

This has not affected the outcome. This AfD has shown no ambiguity about the subject's notability. In any event, I would have given little weight to the subject's wishes on the basis - arising from the consensus here - that those wishes have not been exhaustively pursued through non-deletion avenues.

Similarly, our deletion policy says:

Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.

Again, this AfD has not shown that the subject is a relatively unknown, non-public figure. And there is a rough consensus: a consensus to keep. In any event, I would have not have exercised the discretion to close as delete for the reason given above.

I should add that I do not have OTRS access. I have not seen the OTRS ticket. I have merely taken into account the representations of the subject's wishes in this AfD and on the article and its talk page. It is not proper for a closing administrator to be privy to any more information than the participants in the discussion. Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]