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. Consensus appears to be that the subject meets the criteria of WP:NPROF and that the considerations of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE do not outweigh the notability of the article subject. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Ewel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject of this article has requested that the page be deleted; the page was the outcome of an interview conducted as an assignment in an undergraduate course of which I was an instructor, but they have informed me that they did not give the student consent to create a wikipedia page based on the interview. They have contacted me and requested that the page be removed. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines state that "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written...with regard for the subject's privacy." They go on to say that "... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The subject is very distressed that this page is up; in light of that request and the circumstances under which the page was created I feel that this is a reasonable request, especially given that the page was a summary of the persons professional accomplishments and a list of some of their publications. Embruna (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: it appears the student did *not* publish the article without permission; they left it as a draft. After the semester ended a WP admin took the draft and submitted the page for publication. I believe this should have required author approval? Embruna (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, all content added to Wikipedia (including in draft space) is automatically licensed by its author for public use and does not require any additional approval to publish. It is also not the case that subject approval is required for biographies, although WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows deletion of marginally-notable people who request privacy. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long as It’s not slanderous and is relevant the article should be kept. There are probably many people on here who are not happy they are on here. Passes WP:GNG as this is about an academic. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because borderline applies: Ewel doesn't seem to satisfy very much of PROF. In any case, the "About Jack" reference is an interview, therefore not reliable, and should be removed. Elemimele (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has heavy citations (WP:PROF#C1; Google Scholar [1] lists three publications with four-digit cite counts, first-author papers with citation counts 962, 835, 433, etc., and h-index over 50), is fellow of the AAAS (WP:PROF#C3), and has been president of the Association for Tropical Biology & Conservation (WP:PROF#C6). Additionally, his book has multiple published reviews (WP:AUTHOR). Additionally, his cv is public [2] and there is a public profile of him more or less equivalent to the important parts of our article at JSTOR 10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000056452. So he passes multiple notability criteria, this is not the kind of borderline case that BLPREQUESTDELETE applies to (really, what it actually says has nothing to do with justifying delete !votes in an AfD; rather, it says that if the consensus of an AfD decided by normal notability criteria is lacking, then the closing admin has discretion to use a different-than-usual default, so since delete votes that cite only BLPREQUESTDELETE do not address the normal notability criteria, they should be ignored in the close), and there appears to be little privacy interest in hiding details of his career that are public elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I'll strike my comment, as I hadn't checked his citation rates, and reading David Eppstein's points, I have to agree I was wrong. It's true there is nothing in that article that's not also in the public domain (and thoroughly harmless). The "About Jack" interview should, however, be removed, as an unreliable source. Elemimele (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fellow of the AAAS and citation record both make this a solid pass of WP:NPROF. I see nothing borderline or marginal about this for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The "About Jack" reference is not an interview, but rather is from the subject's webpage, and is fine for non-controversial basic background facts; at a glance, the usage here seems ok. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who is less experienced with these issues than many here I'm struck by the difference between the arguments based on what we can do vs. what we could or should do. There is no harm done in removing the biography - as has been pointed out, all of the information it contains is available elsewhere. But there is some harm to keeping it - notably to the subject, who has expressed that they are very distressed by its presence (for whatever reason, logical or otherwise). Are there "many people on here who are not happy they are on here"? Possibly, though my guess is they are unhappy because there are things on their page they would prefer others not know. This is a case in which little is gained by keeping it, but we can make the world a better place for one person by removing it - without a global loss of information, since people can get still easily find it elsewhere Embruna (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My case above is that he is so notable that Wikipedia really should have this page. (Fellows of the AAAS generally are!) What are his concerns with the article? He'd certainly be very welcome to make edit requests on the talk page. The current article sometimes has overly many personal details. Perhaps that is the concern? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Embruna:, by definition, everything on wikipedia is available somewhere else. We are here to summarise the world for anyone who wants a balanced overview in one place, and we're harming our readers if we prune out genuinely notable people. David Eppstein's point is that we only take the subject's wishes into consideration if they are sitting on the edge of non-notability, and he's made a good case that Ewel isn't. On the other hand, the case is for Ewel's scientific career, not for his personal details, so they can be trimmed out. It's very hard to be an influential scientist and remain anonymous. Only poor old William_Sealy_Gosset is still best remembered by his pseudonym. Elemimele (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I get that, @Elemimele: and appreciate the tenor of the discussion. I also hope it's clear that I'm in an unusual position in that the very reason a student was working on this was because we think the subject merits recognition. Essentially, I agree with everyone here regarding the notability criteria, but find myself advocating for deletion out of deference to and respect for the subject and his wishes. For me, at least, it's complicated. That said, thanks again.Embruna (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to removing the non-career-related details from the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable per WP:NPROF and he should be represented in Wikipedia, the article should be pruned of statements that are not verifiable (but I dont see much of that).--hroest 20:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. NPROF is met, and not remotely "marginally". JoelleJay (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF, when only one would be necessary. Fellows of the AAAS are generally noteworthy enough that failing to cover them does count as a hole in our encyclopedia. Overly personal details can be trimmed, if necessary; I cut a half-sentence about his family and residence to keep the article focused on his career. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Obviously notable, on many criteria. The subject’s concerns should be dealt with seriously, but deletion, no. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that there is some revision deletion in the history. I wonder whether the subject’s concerns have already been dealt with? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe:, unfortunately the subject's request is total deletion, so that will be unlikely. But removal of personal details may help.Embruna (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think there is a tension here between WP:PROF and who is a public figure. This is an easy pass of WP:PROF as many have explained above. However, the question in WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is whether the subject is largely a "relatively unknown, non public figure." The subject did not hold a named professorship, is a co-author or editor of the published books, his fellowship is, as XOR'easter describes, "generally notable," and citation record is a criteria that is used as an alternative to WP:GNG to determine if an academic is notable. So, we have a subject that may meet WP:AUTHOR but in general would not meet WP:GNG in the absence of WP:PROF. To me, this puts the subject squarely into the "relatively unknown, non public figure" realm. --Enos733 (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing about the AAAS fellowship, there is no comprehensive list of fellows on Wikipedia. While it may be a "hole in our encyclopedia," again, the question is whether the subject is a "relatively unknown, non public figure," not about notability. Also, in 2019 and 2020, there were over 400 fellows elected each of those two years. --Enos733 (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misinterpreting BLPREQUESTDELETE. The question of whether the subject is "relatively unknown, non public" is one for the closer of the AfD, in determining what to do if there is no consensus on whether the subject is notable. That does not affect the responsibility of the participants in the AfD of determining whether the subject meets our notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are on the same page - WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows deletion of marginally-notable people who request privacy. The question is whether this subject is in your words "marginally-notable," or as the policy states a "relatively unknown, non public figure." My contention is that most university professors and researchers are relatively unknown figures (irregardless of how many criteria of WP:PROF they pass). That is, the presumption I have when a subject requests deletion, the burden is to show that a subject is a public figure (such as a state or federal elected official where there is news coverage of the subject). --Enos733 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22000+ citations disagree with you. The job of a university professor is to be famous in a narrow area. The subject here has succeeded admirably (indeed, in a slightly broader context, per the AAAS fellowship). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. For many, if not most, university professors, research comes second to teaching. However, the question is not success, but to what degree the subject is a "relatively unknown, non public figure." This standard is not tied to any SNG, but to a general audience. --Enos733 (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2021 (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.