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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zappelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

NPOV issue Furfurel (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I request the deletion - as well as the protection against re-creation - without having tried beforehand to better the article by contributing to it. I don't want to create content for this article in order to first avoid any potential conflict of interest WP:COI. Here is the reason why: I act on behalf of Mr Zappelli. I receive a compensation for this.

I want to respect la behavioral guideline about assuming good faith. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith I am therefore accusing nobody. Indeed, the informations I currently own do not allow me to claim that there is any intention to harm. Nevertheless, in effect, in fact and according to "the subject of history" Mr Zappelli himself, the article is harmful. I want to emphasize the fact that it is handicap when it comes to Mr. Zappelli's current professional activities.

A lack of encyclopedic rigor makes this article fail to respect the "Neutral point of view" policy WP:NPOV, one of the five Wikipedia pillars. WP:5P2, by giving it a negative tone. This article also harms Wikipedia itself by its lack of encyclopedic quality.

You can read more in details about this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Zappelli#NPOV_issue

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Source: "Biographies of living persons" policy, WP:ALIVE

Thank you. Furfurel (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this looks like someone trying to get rid of the article about their boss because of a misinterpretation of the conflict of interest and BLP policies. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is clearly notable, and clearly a public figure. Any neutrality issues can be resolved in the usual way, by editing and talk page discussion, but the fact that he resigned under a cloud is reliably sourced, so needs to be covered here just as his positive achievements should be. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is clearly very notable. We don't get rid of an article merely because its subject doesn't like it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As I already noted on the article's talk page the first time this was attempted, Wikipedia does not give article subjects the right to veto our having of an article about them. In the case of a low-profile figure whose notability claim and sourceability aren't particularly strong, we can take the subject's wishes into consideration under WP:BIODEL — but even then, there still have to be other reasons why the article might be deletable besides the subject's own wishes alone. And a person who has a clean pass of an inclusion criterion, such as a high profile state-level holder of a notable political office, definitely gets no special rights to control the existence of an article about him. If there are neutrality or BLP issues here, they can be resolved through the normal editing process — but Zappelli does not get to unilaterally decree himself off limits as an article topic. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearcat and all above. The subject here is clearly notable, everything else here involves article content, and can be dealt with through the usual channels. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all who contributed to this discussion. Furfurel (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2016 (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.