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.
Courtesy nomination on behalf of the presumed subject themselves on the article’s talk page. The deletion request follows:
I am the subject of this BLP article. I neither sought this article nor welcome it - and I do not consider everyone of my rank to automatically meet the “notable” criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (even if a handful of users comb through promotion announcements and create new pages). Even if admins disagree - I am Not a Public Figure (WP:NPF) and therefore believe I have a right to privacy under the considerations in Wiki policy WP:BLPPRIVACY. In particular, as a serving officer in a time of geopolitical tension, publishing details of my date of birth, exact educational establishments, and middle names leaves me open to phishing, identity theft, social engineering attacks, and possibly threats to my personal and family security. I have therefore reverted an edit that detailed my exact DOB (although I am content to list the year as per policy WP:DOB) and my middle names. I also request that details of my school and related categories is removed.
Finally, as someone with no social media, minimal public profile or interest (all public articles are reports of PR quotations from my employer - hardly a sign of notability), I submit this does not meet the threshold for inclusion and request this article is nominated for deletion. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesparkin (talk • contribs) March 6, 2024 (UTC)
—Filed by~Swarm~{sting}05:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I have sympathy for the subject's desire for privacy, my understanding is that they hold a very senior position in the Royal Navy. If we agreed to this there are plenty of other flag officers and general officers who would need to be deleted as well. As suggested by the subject, I am OK to exclude their exact date of birth, and instead to include just the year, suitably cited. Their middle names have already been disclosed in the London Gazette and are a matter of public record. Dormskirk (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Respectfully, I disagree with the logic behind your argument and the justification therein. You were the original author of this page, a role you fulfil diligently for a significant (but not the majority) proportion of officers of certain ranks in the British Armed forces. There are - at any one time - approx 130 people who are officers in the UK Armed Forces of 2-star rank and above (see para 4.21 of 2023 Report on Senior Salaries) - a group that increases by approximately 20-25 each year as others retire. It cannot be the case that every single one of those officers passes the Wikipedia test on notability. The relevant Wikipedia policy WP:BIO specifically defines notability of a person as:
"remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"
The basic criteria in the same policy WP:BASIC are expanded upon as:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
In no way does an article whose only links are London Gazette citations (which every single recipient of a state honour receives), press releases from employers (Royal Navy and US Navy) and notes accompanying a conference agenda meet these criteria. The other link is to an aggregated list of every junior admiral in Royal Navy history since 1865, which is merely an example of a manual collation of names by a single enthusiast of naval history, and effectively a primary source.
As such, there has been no significant coverage, hardly of these are secondary sources, and none have been multiple-published.
Of course, there may be some of the 130 serving Armed Forces officers who do meet the criteria for notability - my point is that this article (about me) achieves nowhere near this level. Policy WP:NPF is clear about the threshold of Not a Public Figure vs Notable and I cannot see how an obscure person in a job so little-known that the original author (you!) uses the incorrect job title (that was abolished 4 years ago and which I have never held) reaches the level.
The secondary argument you put forward is about my full name and date of birth being “a matter of public record”, citing the London Gazette. Policy WP:BLPPRIVACY says:
Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public
Neither my full name or Date of Birth have been widely published - every single officer in the UK Armed Forces has their full details published in the London Gazette every time they are promoted or decorated, as this is part of holding a Queen’s/King’s commission, and yet the links are so obscure and not indexed by search engines that inclusion on Wikipedia could be considered an invasion of privacy. In addition no document or press release that I have ever approved has included any of these items of information. So neither of these pieces of information have been “widely published” - relying on the London Gazette for which justification is against the spirit and the letter of that Wikipedia policy.
Finally, it is worth reflecting about Wikipedia policy on serving members of the Armed Forces having BLP. Who does this benefit? For public figures, widely quoted and seen, of very senior rank, the notability threshold is clearly met- but for others, of no interest to the public but useful to potential enemies, this sort of thing is gold dust. Well meaning but flawed logic trying to dig up obscure snippets of personal information and publishing it on the worlds biggest reference site causes significant security risks to those people in senior positions who would be - in a time of conflict - in severe personal danger. I note that hardly any equivalent rank officers from other Armed Forces from less open societies have their own Wiki pages - insisting on doing it to officers from open societies places families at risk and there should certainly be a Wikipedia policy on this. Jamesparkin (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Jamesparkin (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject removed his middle names, cited only to the London Gazette, arguably a WP:BLPPRIMARY source, but it was restored by the article creator. WP:BLPPRIVACY states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" Also per BLPPRIVACY: "The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified" AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity - I did not edit any of the text of this page (I have always been told that as soon as you do that, you are endorsing its presence) to remove/add a middle name - I just "reverted" the whole edit which, for the first time, included my Date of Birth. You have noticed something I had not, which is that there was a difference in the two versions as to middle names. Jamesparkin (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking account of the apparent subject's points. Back to basics: per WP:PRIMARY: "5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources". I see only primary sources in this article. Essentially what the subject is complaining of is that, yes, the information is obtainable from the public record, but only in relatively obscure primary sources - we're propelling that information across the internet by publishing it on one its most prominent websites. As a headline, secondary sources are basically not interested in him and neither should we be. DeCausa (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject's reasonable request. More broadly, a person is only notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the person. Routine coverage in armed forces and government sources does not meet that threshold. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested by the subject, a right stated in policy. As said above, there's only routine coverage, not conferring notability, so there's no obstacle to the requested deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not like this man's rank is at the top of the military, not like he's done anything that makes his life and associates international headlines. And as far as I can tell, this man is unlikely to live on in his country's history books. Of all people, Wikipedia editors with assumed identities should appreciate this man's right to privacy. Wikipedians can use any identity they want when they join. Those same Wikipedians can maintain their alias until the day they die if they like. Their friends, families, and co-workers are automatically protected by that anonymity. We should extend that same courtesy here by honoring this individual's right to not have his article on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
