My response below appeared very belated as I realised after sending it that it woudl go to moderation as I had changed my e-mail address. It is of course now old news as the AfD on Angela's article has been closed as no consensus - keep. This debate had lead me to reconsider my position. I really do not see why we should not delete articles on living persons if they request it and if they have not put themself firmly into the public domain, such as standing for office. Starting a company is not putting yourself into the public domain. It is the company that may deserve an article and the people who founded it should be mentioned. But that does not imply that we should breach their privacy by a full article on the founders. Getting elected to the Royal Society or similar is not pushing yourself into the public domain. Such a person might be mentioned on an article that explained the advance that lead to their election to the RS, but if they do not want a full bio, we should not write one. Privacy is very important. We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. If a person is really notable, an article can be added later, possibly after their death, if they persit in requesting that there be no article in their lifetime. I do not think this course of action is out of line. For example, I think "Who's Who" does not force an entry on someone who does not want one. They do not argue that someone is notable and people have a right to find out about them whether the person wants this or not. I think there is a terrible arrogance about forcing a WP article on someone who does not want their privacy breached in this way. I understand that my approach is very close to the Japan WP approach that I asked about at the end. I think it should be followed up and implemented in the en WP. Apologies for top posting. I do not normally top post, but I am not specifically addressing the issues in the post below, just following up rather late. Brian.