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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cole (public relations)[edit]

Michael Cole (public relations) (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)

Deletion is requested in behalf of the subject of this article, who has objected to its existence in VRTS ticket # 2014110810005782. The standard response is to offer to correct errors or nominate the article for deletion. He was given the opportunity to correct errors in the article, but he prefers deletion, with the understanding that the community may elect to keep it. I have no objection to its removal. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As article creator the major source I used, as evidenced by the article itself, was his own website so the "many errors" might well be his or his people's own fault. I can see nothing unsourced in the article for him to get upset about but I'm not going to argue strongly for keeping as really he was never that important in the first place (and certainly not now as his media profile has been lower than a gnat's belly for years) and Wikipedia will easily survive without him. No real objections to deletion from me essentially. Keresaspa (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The only specific objection he mentioned in the email was about his education (wrong school). Because the source didn't support the claim about his attendance, I deleted the entire education section. That, apparently, wasn't sufficient. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Royal Correspondent at the BBC is a pretty notable post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The post may be notable, but does that make the person notable by virtue of inhabiting it? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Following is an excerpt from OTRS correspondence with Mr Cole, reproduced here with permission. He hopes that the reviewing administrator will seriously consider this appeal. As for myself, like the author of the article, I have no problem with its disappearance. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...

I wish my privacy to be respected by Wikipedia. As I have already demonstrated, the capacity for error in such entries is very great. You have acknowledged this by removing the reference to Millfield School. I do not ask if you have replaced it with citation of Preston Manor County Grammar School because, of course, I wish no mention by you at all.

During my working life, I have met 10 other people called Michael Cole, including a newspaper journalist, a Royal Navy Admiral and a producer of BBC television programmes for children. The possibility of mistaken identity is just one of the hazards in the path of a person with as common a name as mine.

In addition, things become rapidly out of date. After 14 successful years, I wound up my highly solvent company, Michael Cole & Co. Ltd., in good order in 2012. But this significant change goes largely unremarked or is passed by in allegedly authoritative listings, although Companies House was notified as legally lequired.

I do not complain abaout this and it is hardly surprising as my company was not WPP. It was one of a sole trader and that sole lonely figure was me!

Disolving my company was just one of the ways in which, at the age of 71, I have sought to assert and protect my privacy. Being removed from Wikipedia is another.

I have neither the time nor inclination to work through my entry correcting all the errors, unwonted inferences and obvious misunderstandings. Indeed, I should not be expected to do so in order to protect an invaluable abstract, my right to privacy.

You mentioned a newspaper and the BBC and in such a way as to suggest that they are impeccable sources of factual information. Well, I worked for newspapers for 7 years and for the BBC for more than 20. I have to tell you that your faith is misplaced; the BBC and newspapers often make factual mistakes and more often than not, they are not promptly corrected and sometimes never.

Correcting the record is notoriously difficult, particularly as most newspapers are very reluctant to admit it when they have made a mistaken, as you would know if you have ever tried to do it.

If you have ever read a story or heard a report about something of which you have close, factual knowledge (it does not have to have a personal connection) you will know that the journalists always get something wrong. They may not mean to but they do.

So, please do the decent thing and comply with my request.

You will have your own ways of doing things but I should like to think that whomsoever is making the decision in this matter should be fully aware of our e-mail correspondence in the hope that it will enlighten him, her or them to the perfectly respectable, rational and reasonable reasons that have motivated this earnest request to you.

...

Yours sincerely,

Michael (Dexter) Cole

• Delete because much of the coverage of him is inherited. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - indeed much of his coverage seems to be inherited from Al Fayed. starship.paint ~ regal 08:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I agree with many of the points above, but there is probaby enough here to merit keeping as the Al Fayeds' key spokesman for many years, irrespective of what Necrothesp rightly points out about BBC Royal Correspondent above. We could suggest WP:TRANS into the entry on Al Fayed as this appears to be the strongest reason regarding WP:GNG? Mediavalia (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or redirect and merge to Mohamed Al-Fayed. Because I am technically not the nominator (just a proxy for the subject who wants the article deleted), I feel justified in providing my own views. I see four arguments for removing this article:

  Speedy deletion: The short contribution history shows the appearance of a couple other editors expanding the article, but all of those additions have been removed, leaving dominant only the contributions of Keresaspa, who created it. And he has no objections to its deletion (see his comment above), bringing this article into speedy-delete territory on WP:CSD#G7 grounds. If Keresaspa happened to tag the article with ((db-g7)), its subsequent deletion would be speedy and uncontroversial.

  Liability: According to Mr Cole's statement reproduced above, the article is rife with errors because the cited independent sources misrepresent facts, and he has no interest in correcting them because he wants the article deleted. Even considering WP:NOTTRUTH, if the sources didn't get the facts straight, Wikipedia's purpose in disseminating knowledge isn't served by compounding the problem, and exposes the WMF to potential liability if libel issues arise with the cited sources.

  Position vs person: An influential post at the BBC may be notable, the person who inhabits may not be, particularly if no coverage about that person in the context of that post can be found. Ford Motor Company has had several presidents, for example, but not all of them are notable enough to merit an article here.

  Inherited notability: The remaining sources imply that the subject inherited notability through Mohamed Al-Fayed. Appropriate parts of this article could be merged there, and this article could be converted to a redirect.

  I admit that second point is weak, but with all four taken together, I am leaning toward deletion. The article would not be missed, and the subject would be grateful. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yes, I tend to agree with these arguments. So on reflection I'd lean towards delete too.Mediavalia (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While there is some in-depth coverage in reliable sources, a strong case can be made for inherited notability through Mohamed Al-Fayed. Moreover, since the subject of the article would like it deleted, I find no reason to keep it. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2014 (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.