Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Keith

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 no consensus. I leaned towards a 'keep' close but there is sufficient disagreement as to whether WP:BASIC/WP:BLP1E apply that I can't quite call it a consensus. It seems clear to me that as long as we don't have a malicious motive publishing details of his legal trouble is not libel - however IANAL so remain open to correction. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Keith

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

Request via OTRS 2011121310011536 - This article deals mainly with the offence committed in 2007. In five days time this offence will be classed as spent under UK Law

(Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

1974 CHAPTER 53

An Act to rehabilitate offenders who have not been reconvicted of any serious offence for periods of years, to penalise the unauthorised disclosure of their previous convictions, to amend the law of defamation, and for purposes connected therewith.).

It will then become libellous to publish that information. Just to remove the conviction data would leave a very poor article that is unlikely to ever expand. Bit of a WP:BLP1E Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act situation has little currency for me as I am not beholden to British law (nor is Wikipedia in general), although, in the interests of accuracy, the law only forbids the publication of spent convictions with malice (which wouldn't apply here regardless). On the other hand, this is pretty much a canonical WP:BLP1E/WP:CRIME situation, unless there are some appropriate sources that I'm unable to find. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply here:

He is not a low-profile individual. He has given media interviews. For example Profile: Jeremy Keith

Reliable sources covered Mr. Keith in more than the context of a single event. His purchase of Derby County F.C., his involvement in the management of the club over the 2 1/2 years he was a director, and his legal difficulties were all covered by reliable sources.

Which aspect of WP:CRIME do you think is relevant?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to provide samples of the independent, reliable sources that nontrivially discuss this subject in other capacities? Of the sources currently cited in the article, all but two are related to the criminal charge. Of the remaining two, I see no reason to consider CompanyCheck a reliable source. The BBC is generally reliable, but the BBC link is a interview with the subject bereft of any analysis or commentary, and so is arguably not independent. My efforts to locate such sources were not successful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the BBC interview is not independent of the subject for the purposes of WP:BASIC? What do you mean by other capacities? Other than a defendant in the trial or other than an owner and director of Derby County?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Derby County F.C.; possible search term but no independent notability. Giant Snowman 11:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what should be done with the material in the Financial Irregularities section? It's not in the Derby County article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need including. Giant Snowman 17:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those events and the trial in particular received enough coverage to meet notability guidelines.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy or guideline that leads you to think that a person's notability must be independent of his association with an organization?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, WP:NOTINHERITED. Members of a notable organization are not, for example, inherently notable on their own. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's different from requiring a person's notability to be independent of his involvement with the organization. He would not be notable simply for being an owner and director of a notable football club. He's notable because he meets WP:BASIC.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The noms reason for deletion doesn't hold water. The individual, his work and offence is public knowledge. It will never be libel to publish it. Szzuk (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be in the UK. The UK law regards this as a very minor crime (otherwise the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would not apply). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is nonsense. Such nonsense it makes me wonder if you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. Szzuk (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've no COI - I don't know the person, the only similarity is we are both in UK, and someone has to read the OTRS tickets! Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Derby County F.C.. This seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E, as "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Outside of this event, he only received passing mentions in articles about Derby County. The BBC source doesn't establish notability because a) it's a single source and b) it's a local source. But, as GiantSnowman suggests, this could be a search term, so a redirect is appropriate. Moswento ^talky 08:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply. He doesn't meet the second condition of BLP1E. He was not a low-profile individual.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He meets WP:BASIC for coverage of his time as owner and director of Derby County (See:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]) as well as for coverage of the trial.

Legal Wikipedia must adhere to United States law but does not try to follow the laws of all other countries. The laws of the UK are not a valid reason for deletion. Also Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) has explained that the British law only prohibits publication with malice, which doesn't apply.
BLP1E This policy does not apply to Mr. Keith because he was covered by reliable sources for more than a single event and he is not a low-profile individual.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BASIC. It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that the act referred to above means that once a conviction has been spent it can never be mentioned by anyone ever again, that's just nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He meets WP:BASIC, end of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2014 (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.