 | This article was nominated for deletion on December 28 2015. The result of the discussion was to delete the problematic history of the past article consistent with the verified request of the subject and either start a stub or create a new redirect. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by Nagle (talk · contribs) on 11 January 2016 with the comment: article was deleted via AfD after extensive discussions. It was contested by Jahaza (talk · contribs) on 11 January 2016 with the comment: this was discussed before the article was recreated, the decision was delete consistent verified request of the subject and either start a stub or create a new redirect. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Discussion Prior to Recreation edit
AFD David Bray
Can you adjust the closing rationale in the AFD for David Bray to allow recreation based on currently available information, not on future development of notability? That would be in line with the subjects stated preference, "TNT Delete and redirect OR Delete and start a stub anew with new editors." Since there was no consensus to delete, I think it's fairer to go with the less radical of the options that Bray agreed to.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, I think the subject's preference was mainly that the article is deleted. Sandstein 19:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks Sandstein and Samuel, actually I'm okay with what Samuel proposes if it helps? My bigger concern was the past history of the former article that included some personal information that as the article subject I didn't think was notable or appropriate? An alternative would be to redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Modernization_of_the_FCC.27s_information_technology_systems if someone feels that is appropriate. I am trying not to be too involved as my primary focus is on "getting stuff done". Thank you both for your help and understanding. Northernva (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with a redirect, but once we have a redirect, it's basically an open invitation for someone to branch it off into a new article.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- All right, in this case I don't see a real problem with a grounds-up recreation. Can't guarantee that somebody won't renominate it for deletion, though. Sandstein 21:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that decision was a good call, an interesting balance of elements and policies. I learned something there! :) Shritwod (talk) ~
Thank you all. I did a redirect, though to a different existing entry. Please revert if you think doing this is inappropriate or if I've somehow done this incorrectly. Thank you. Northernva (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
— Talk page of AFD Closing Admin Last diff of quote
Question edit
Question for Northernva, did you as the article's subject really ask for the previous article to be deleted, and if so why? It seemed fairly positive and you seem to meet notability? WatchDogUS (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi WatchDogUS, I requested a delete and redirect or delete and start anew as the previous article seemed to go into details about some non-notable information unrelated to my role even that with edits they would still be in the history. Apparently the details were posted by an editor under multiple aliases and included personal family details. Since I am not a political appointee and not a politician (I am a non-partisan senior executive) this seemed to encroach potentially into our privacy. With this concern I indicated I would be okay with either TNT Delete and redirect OR Delete and start a stub anew with new editors deferring to others with Wikipedia. A delete was done and after that a redirect. Thank you. Northernva (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's correct, the article subject requested the article deletion. The editor's identity was confirmed by email and WP:ORTS ticket. Since the subject is close to the threshold for notability, it was deleted as a courtesy. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Bray. John Nagle (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Okay and that’s helpful context on this redirect to know that the subject, being a public official, wasn’t against an article specifically in the request, and that the AfD outcome was a delete out of a courtesy given the circumstances and closeness to the threshold with the possibility of a redirect or new article. Usually a lack of consensus is keep, I wanted to assume good faith involving a biographies of living persons and appreciate the context. WatchDogUS (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)