Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Muirhead

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 Although the request by the subject of the article cannot of itself precipitate a deletion, it is not a wholly irrelevant comment; the article in any event does not make a good case for notability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.bradbury (talk • contribs)

Patrick Muirhead

Patrick Muirhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A former BBC Radio 4 continuity announcer and newsreader who then had a brief career on television in the Channel Islands. This makes a dubious claim to notability; currently running a shop which is clearly not notable. The subject does not wish to have an article. There are WP:BLP concerns and under past precedent, the views of the subject of an article are legitimate to take into account where their notability is borderline. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by article subject placed on the article [1]: I am Patrick Muirhead. I wholeheartedly support the proposed deletion of this article. I was not a celebrity, did not create this article in the first place and do not wish to see details of my life and career online, especially since so many commentators on my previous media career are either illiterate, partisan or simply ill-informed. Please remove it. Thank you.

• Keep I don't think he would have written in saying he doesn't want publicity, yet give an extensive interview to the Times. The Times article denotes notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Norton

If you have any doubts about my authenticity, email me via my shop's website or phone the telephone number you will find there, and I will give you my personal assurance that I do not wish to have an article about me here. Thank you.

PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.150.190 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is a very tricky case. There doesn't seem to have been much written about him until he quit Radio 4 and tried TV, and then he got coverage for walking away from TV and briefly trying to get back on Radio 4 before looking for other lines of work and badmouthing the media. There's this in the Guardian, and a handful of pieces in the Times, but he also writes for the Times so it isn't independent. I'm inclined toward a courtesy delete as barely notable to begin with, and only notable for his downfall as it were. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  The comment above perfectly illustrates my point. At no point did I attempt "to get back on Radio 4". I was only too glad to get OUT of Radio 4 after seven years of being exploited and under-valued. I would agree: barely notable. I'm just a country shopkeeper these days. Let's leave it at that. PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead (talk • contribs) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Times indicates otherwise. Not that you seem unhappy with the outcome. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The subject of this article sent me two emails requesting that I desist in editing the article. The first email followed a minor edit by me in which I wiki-linked continuity announcer and incorrectly changed gentlemen's to gentlemens' (sic) (probably this is the illiterate contribution referred to above). The subject reverted this contribution in its entirety. Subsequently I restored the page to a previous version in which the word "co-presenter" replaced "presenter" and the external link to the subject's website was removed from the body of the article and placed in the external links section where it belongs. The subject conveyed in the text of his emails that neither I nor anyone else was qualified to edit the article. I then reminded the subject, via the talk page of WP:OWN. The subject did not attempt to use the article's talk page to discuss or correct any inaccuracies and the general impression was one of an assumption of bad faith. As to the article itself I have no opinion on to whether it should be kept or deleted, my initial contribution was initially intended simply to wiki-link continuity announcer and my second to put the external link in the right place and not make the article sound like an advertisement, other changes were, initially at least, co-incidental. Jooler (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral (for now) we haven't had something like this since John Byrne deleted large chunks of his article. This is a very, very strange AfD and I really don't know what to do here (for once). The subjects insistence that he does not want an article is completely arbitrary but the question is, is the subject notable in the first place? As seen from several vandalism reverts (Including one of mine here), someone - possibly the subject - deleted the whole article several times (my vandalism revert was the last of about 3). It does seem that a BBC presenter named Patrick Muirhead does exist (so this isn't one very odd hoax, thankfully). I don't plan on making a vote until I see a few more sources proving notability. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add more comments, re: the above remarks. Firstly, if any of you care to telephone me at work (phone number of my shop on my website) I will happily confirm that I wish this article about me to be deleted. My assistant will take any messages when I'm not there. Secondly, with surprise that it should be necessary, I urge you strongly to exercise caution in what you infer from reading newspapers. You really need to be told that???! Be clear about this, however: I left the BBC a very angry man, used national newspapers to gain catharsis and shamelessly milked my 'barely notable' status to gain as much publicity as I possibly could for my fledgling small business. It was a worthwhile strategy. Now my retail business is up and running and profitable, and I am indeed training for a new and separate professional career, I am content to settle for obscurity. I don't merit a profile here. I am not a Wikipedia enthusiast and simply cannot be bothered to learn a whole lot of arcane rules to satisfy your collective instinct for tidiness and order (though not accuracy); I simply want the article scrubbed. Don't pontificate on my bona fides: phone me (or email) and find out if you have any doubts. Patrick Muirhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are Mr. Muirhead is not for debate, it's 1. If your article meets WP:BIO or if your notable. We try to be as neutral as possible and Wikipedia does not delete articles by the subject's request. I live in America, but am an Anglophile. Sadly, I do not get any British newspapers to even know why you left the Beeb. I did look around the Internet and yes, there are some sources about you, but the fact that you want the article on you delete doesn't do anything. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Take an objective view of what you just wrote. You don't delete articles by the subject's request. How utterly bizarre! A person's desire NOT to be profiled on a website should be their choice and a prime consideration. Anyway, I think we can all agree that I do not qualify as notable. And to lessen the workload for you and your busy Wikipedia bees correcting my revisions, it would be wise and expedient to remove me. I have access to multiple computers and a lot of determination. PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I can't see that there's enough in this article as it currently stands to demonstrate notability. I have to say, though, that I'm sorely tempted to try to work the article up to standard myself, in reaction to the contempt and hostility being displayed here. I'm not proud of myself for that reaction, but there it is ... Mlaffs (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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.