This article was nominated for deletion on 25 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
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 sourcedmust 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 article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This subsection does not represent the neutral point of view that Wikipedia is supposed to have. The Davenport-Hines "criticism" is dated 1998 and the "apology" is 2005 (the Hari criticism, dated 2004, is a dead link), so only tenuously connected. I propose deleting the subsection, but will leave for a while in case there are any comments. If the subsection is to stay, it should be written in a more balanced way. Tony Holkham(Talk)11:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting sourced material does not seem the way to go. I am probably being dim, but could you please spell out in which direction you think the lack of neutrality lies? SovalValtos (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being accused of something (in this case homophobia, but that's by the way) and then being contrite about it some years later is not encyclopaedic, in my view. Utley writes about almost everything under the sun, and for this instance to be highlighted doesn't seem particularly balanced in the context of the whole article. I have noticed a tendency throughout WP to add a "Criticism" section to BLPs; to do so without some other information about the person makes it look as though WP is being used as a soapbox. I have no problem with the section being left as it is, as I do not take a position on the criticism, but just because it is sourced it doesn't mean it should be there. Hope that makes sense! Tony Holkham(Talk)17:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So is Mr Utgley reliable for information about himself if published in the DM (to be more precise is the DM an RS for what Mr Utley says?)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
