Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Muirhead

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Muirhead[edit]

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

per WP:ONEEVENT. The subject did not have an article until the allegations of child pornography were made - this is a fairly strong indication that subject is only notable for the allegations. Basically, this article exists for the sole purpose of recording the highly damaging allegations. Mattinbgn\^talk 06:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Mattinbgn, although Collectors is popular within its niche, he's at best of limited notability on our terms, and creating an article just because he was charged with a serious offense is going to be a problem. If this turns out to be a high-profile case then there may be an argument, but at the moment the article will just serve to air unproven allegations. - Bilby (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mattinbgn's argument is also a clear argument for CSD, and I've nominated it accordingly. St Anselm (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I have declined the speedy because it is both referenced and neutral in tone (despite being about a negative event) 7 07:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course - while a case could be made for entire negativity, I missed the bit about it needing to be unsourced to qualify. St Anselm (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this has already been noted on the Collectors page Reubot (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Very strange to create the article at this time. He was entirely notable through his media work, but I'd have waited until the outcome of judicial proceedings before creating the article. The article has very little merit as it stands, and looks WP:POINTY. Tony (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This entry appears to have been created in response to the recent charge laid against Mr Muirhead. The article is unbalanced. It says little about Mr Muirhead's career and life prior to this charge being laid. Andy has yet to have his day in court and we are yet to hear his side of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpmck (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) — Lpmck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
Delete - As flagged by Tony, Muirhead could possibly have been regarded as a notable figure, but that remains an ex post facto justification since the article was only created as a vehicle for discussion about this single event. Delete per nom. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:ONEEVENT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - I created the article. I did so to make a few redlinks turn blue. I feel that notability is the only potential problem with the article. I don't have an opinion as to whether he is notable enough. I'd like to say that his child porn charges make him more notable, not less so. If he was notable due to his media career, then he is notable now. The article is not defamatory. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the thrust of Richard Cavell's comment. Rather than see the article deleted I think it could be expanded with more details of Andy Muirhead's media career along the lines of articles about other Australians who have fallen foul of the law, eg former cricket umpire Steve Randell or ABC reporter Peter Lloyd, neither of whom in my opinion were as well known to most Australians (ie notable) as was Andy Muirhead before the news of the charges against him became public. Did anyone suggest that Lloyd's article should be deleted when he was (1) arrested, (2) convicted, (3) released, or (4) when he resumed working for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation? Shortshadow (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised that this has only just been created and that it is only a stub. Given the circumstances, it will have to be watched for BLP issues. However, he is a well-known media figure in Australia, the host of a popular program on national television. Wikipedia should have an article about him - obviously a much better one than this is so far. Metamagician3000 (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I operate under the assumption of good faith and do believe the article was created in good faith. The version of the article that I saw did not contain anything that contravened BLP, although it could do with more information about the person's career. Reg Evans did not have an article until after his death, something I only realised (with a little embarrassment), after updating and adding references to that article. Sometimes a media event is what is needed to remind editors that someone doesn't have a wikipedia article. Format (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ weak Keep - Wikipedia sets a terribly high bar for the inclusion of any scandalous content in a BLP, and rightly so. The article is currently a two and a half line stub, with one of them dealing with reputation-shattering allegations. This is a blatant BLP issue - The unproven allegations must go, and without them the article is a one-line stub. Delete the article now, unless immediately rewritten with some non-scandalous content. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling it an "unproven allegation" is misleading to say the least - he's been arrested, for gods sake, and it's been reported in every newspaper in the country. Rebecca (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment He has not yet been formally charged, far less convicted, therefore I'd say "unproven allegation" is pretty much spot on. I have amended my reccomendation in light of the changes made in the last day, however while the pornography issue remains a mere allegation I still believe it should stay right out of the article on BLP grounds. Wikipedia shouldn't be preemptively deciding this man's guilt. We're an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops, apparently he has been charged. My mistake. We're still not a crystal ball though. I'd say wait til he's convicted.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. While you all sat around grumbling, I went and found some sources and expanded the article to include his career. So all the arguments for deletion are now invalid. A WP:TROUT to the article creator for creating such an unbalanced article in the first place, a TROUT to the nominator for citing ONEEVENT when he is not just known for charge, and a TROUT for everyone who voted deleted while knowing he is notable and not bothering to improve the article. Fences&Windows 23:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep your TROUT to yourself! Nothing you have added to the article changes my opinion that this article would not currently exist except for the unproven allegations made. I still would have nominated the article based on WP:ONEEVENT if I had run across the article in its current state. The subject is marginally notable and is now best known for unsavoury, unproven allegations. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difficulty is that what is now produced is an article about someone who has done a bit in his career, all of which is overshadowed by current unproven allegations. I'd be much happier deleting the article and revisiting it later, when the current issues are either proven or able to be placed in a wider context. - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's all of three sentences in the article explaining the charges against him, which hardly seems excessive. There's also plenty more that could be said about him, considering that it dedicates all of about five words to the role which he's nationally known for. If someone famous does something scandalous, we don't delete their article all of a sudden - we document it with appropriate sourcing and weight, and watch the article like a hawk. Rebecca (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we do. I guess the question for me is how we handle these problems with people of marginal fame, and whether or not the model you describe is the best approach in this particular case. The Herald Sun has some rather well-reasoned comments on this sort of situation, although I'm aware that others will see it differently. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My expansion of the article was just the start. He is notable for his TV and comedy career, and regardless of the way the article was started we can't delete the article just because of the recent allegation. It's irrelevant now that the article was started recently, it is sourced and now pretty neutral. BLP doesn't say "don't ever write about people who have just been publicly accused of a crime." The solution is to debate the depth of inclusion (if any!) of this accusation in his bio on the talk page, and to continue expanding the article - or is everyone else's edit button not working? Fences&Windows 18:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the article's creator - I support the changes that Fences&Windows has made to the article. It was my intention in starting the article to allow for that kind of improvement, not to work against it. I do not presume that the subject is guilty of the charge made against him, nor do I assume that if he is guilty, that he is truly a paedophile. I maintain that he is notable. The BLP policy requires negative information to be sourced and reasonable, and I think that the current article is both of those things. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable as host of a TV show that has attained quite a following (about 1 million, according to this, which is undeniably significant per WP:ENT). Not to mention he was also the host of a show on one of Hobart's main radio stations. I'm not sure how this could be construed as WP:ONEEVENT. Frickeg (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was the host of a popular, nationally-known TV show, who most definitely should have had an article prior to this. There's undoubtedly BLP issues concerning the criminal charges - so make sure any mention of them well-sourced and of appropriate length, and protect or semi-protect as needed. It's completely ridiculous to claim that that's all he's known for because someone forgot to write an article on him prior to this. Rebecca (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as host of a national TV show. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. only reason he didn't have an article before is that no-one had got around to making it. He was the presenter of a national TV program and did radio in Hobart. The events are terrible and really test our BLP values, however I feel he is too notable to not have an article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even dismissing the allegations against him he appears to be notable. The article will need to be watched to ensure the BLP policy is followed but that is not a reason to delete the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would be happy for the charges to be left out and only be included if he is convicted - why the show is of TV can then be explained in less specific terms. I am surprised he has not had an entry before this as he certainly qualifies under the terms of WP:ENT with multiple significant TV, Radio and stage appearances.Porturology (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2010 (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.