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 speedy keep. Opened by a sock of an LTA. Izno (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Kukula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

It has been six years since the Daily Mail reported (Redacted). SandrineWiki (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

< Multiple violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy (unsourced speculation about a living individual) redacted AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC) >[reply]

It is curious that, as far as I know, the man himself has not requested his Wikipedia biography be removed. Perhaps he is unaware he has that right. Or perhaps he sees a benefit in it continuing to be the top result on Google for his name? SandrineWiki (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as the nominator presents no Wikipedia policy for the AfD. There's a general disclaimer for Wikipedia and the argument provided has no merit here. – The Grid (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general disclaimer is quite irrelevant in situations where sufficient information exists on which to make an informed judgment consistent with the values of Wikipedia (and one assumes protection of minors is one such value). If there is no actual Wikipedia policy that says <redacted AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC) > should be considered for deletion with a full and thorough debate of the facts, I would be quite surprised.[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. – The Grid (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Astronomy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the above redactions are wholly unnecessary and potentially indefensible given the perversity of their effect here. I find it curious, for example, that the matters I spoke of above, now redacted, were freely discussed in the first deletion discussion. They are still visible. "Wikipedia" is still facilitating their discovery (while disavowing general responsibility for their publishing). All I have done is restate the case with the added data points that six years have passed, certain matters relevant to this subject have become newsworthy, and this man still has a LinkedIn profile that says things relevant to those news stories. Given all that, I thought now might be the time Wikipedia editors choose to make an informed choice using the methods they state are the approved means for such things. I am being cautious about what I say now, while having no idea why such cautious is necessary. I made no allegations, criminal or otherwise. Nothing I said was my own invention, it is all easily discovered or inferred, some by the very source I did indeed actually provide to justify my reasoning (the BBC news story). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandrineWiki (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There's still no reason to remove an article because of some allegiation. As your first edit was listing this for AfD, you need to be more familiar with Wikipedia policies. This is something that could have been discussed on the article's talk page. – The Grid (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it appears the nominator may have been using this AFD page to attack or do something to the subject's reputation, or delete because of the subject's reputation. However since earlier content has been redacted, I cannot tell what is going on or the motivation. (And perhaps I don't want to know). There are adequate sources to show notability, and Wikipedia is not censored, like some other web sites may decide to be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2024 (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.