- 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. However, cleanup to ensure compliance with WP:BLP would be a worthwhile endeavour. Yunshui 雲水 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian Swingland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Swingland Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am Ian Swingland. I want the page concerning me deleted. I don't want a debate or discussion but the page struck off.
It has become the target of constant editing by one person and as a donor to Wikipedia I believe I should have my wishes respected.
One of your administrators keeps editing my page with conjecture and newspaper's hyperbole put up by others. He describes himself as an inclusionist but I and my legal team take a different view. The outcome of a trial I suffered last winter is shrouded by an injunction and what has happened subsequently is tittle-tattle and gossip in the press. Mark Twain said "If you don't read newspapers you're uninformed. If you do, you're misinformed."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianswingland (talk • contribs)
- Keep. The subject is described as a "world-renowned conservation professor"[1] and "renowned conservationist" (by the Times no less[2]) who was accused of being involved in a tax-dodging scheme. That can't be just conveniently swept under the rug. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very sympathetic to article subjects not wanting to be included, but in this case your objection isn't to being included but to facts about a widely reported on $60 million tax dodge. If it is only an allegation there are grounds for removal but if it's been established in courts and / or resulted in actions taken by notable agencies it seems wrong to engage in censorship. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're all missing the point. The judge put an injunction over publishing and dissemination of matters concerning the trial precipitated by highly inaccurate and prejudicial press reports September 2017. The Court may take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianswingland (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel you are missing the point. While anyone in the UK is certainly bound by UK jurisdiction, outside the UK editors are not. Secondly except under extreme circumstances the judge is hardly likely to be able to restrict publishing of already published material (from 2016, still available on the telegraph website). If he had, the telegraph would have been required to remove it. Wikipedia works on already published information. And as a friendly notification, stay away from any wording implying legal action on your part against Wikipedia editors. Otherwise you will find your ability to edit here swiftly restricted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I remain unconvinced that his actions rise to the level that requires us to have an article on him, and if they are not at that level there is no harm in deleting the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article was started over seven years ago. Swingland seems notable so it's a keep. The wording about the tax dodge could be softened, though. YoPienso (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously, as someone who obviously far exceeds our notability requirements on many levels. I would add that, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ian Swingland we should not imply that we know why his OBE was withdrawn without a reliable source saying why. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obviously passes GNG, given he has commited no crime cut back on the tax avoidance stuff Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a financial donor to Wikipedia does not give anyone any editing priviledges. Legal threats are banned in Wikipedia. Swingland should have known that autobiographies are likely to cause critical remarks in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.95.90 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We don't delete pages at the subject's request, even if they're donors. If someone's adding libelous remarks, they can be dealt with, but the solution is not to delete the page. Smartyllama (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (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.