Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Pasquill

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Pasquill[edit]

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

Non notable minor civil servant who briefly came to attention after losing his job and being arrested for breaching the UK Official Secrets Act. WP:ONEVENT would suggest that the artcile subject is not notable. The last two paragraphs of the article are pure fluff. I prodded this but the prod was removed by User:Pfferle. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep Actually, it was me who removed the prod, not User:Pfferle. I agree about the fluff, but it seems to me that independent coverage in several reliable sources over the course of three years establishes sufficient notability for an article. He's one of the better known British whistleblowers. Rl (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading some of the !votes, I am rather amazed. The article is clearly not self-promotion. The man in question and his background are certainly relevant to the events (say, in contrast to Steve Bartman). The information he leaked in 2005 is certainly of historical interest. He was the source for a book (2006) by a renowned journalist. He was the main subject of articles in The Observer (2007) and Standpoint (2009). The New Statesman published Pasquill's own thoughts on the events (2008). He was interviewed again for a BBC 4 radio feature on whistleblowing (broadcast 26 October 2009). It is not hard to find more sources. Quite clearly, the leak and the prosecution of the leaker were notable events. I do not think that this is what WP:BLP1E was intended to remove from WP. I have no stake in this article other than wondering why a WP article that I found useful in understanding a recent news story is about to be deleted. Rl (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BLP1E is very clear on this. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them If the trivia about the name is removed, we have a three paragraph stub which states that he exists, he was arrested, he was cleared when the prosecution dropped the case and that he was sacked - now if he went on to be a talk show host or became a leading freedom of information campaigner ro something else then there would be a reason for the article to exist. At the momenet there isn't enough to staisfy the notability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider moving to the name of the court case. I remember this case on Newsnight when it arose, and it was a landmark test case as to the power of the Official Secrets Act - namely, the assertion of the Foreign Office that they could decide when a leak from their department was against the public interest. If this isn't kept, then I suggest a merge of the court case information into the Official Secrets Act article. The last two paragraphs can go though - can't see any encyclopaedic content there. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E; I don't see what would properly be merged into the article on the act. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could add a section to the Official Secrets Act 1989 article called "notable cases", possibly also including the R v Shayler cases too. (This assumes it was the 1989 Act Pasquill was charged under.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. News. If we hear about him again he can come back. Szzuk (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting guy, but still a case of WP:BLP1E. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject of a test case , with substantial public interest and likely historical notability.
Delete. A very very clear WP:BLP1E. If it were not for the legal issue, this guy would be thoroughly unnotable. I need not point out that WP:BLP1E is policy (through WP:BLP), not a guideline. Unless there are compelling reasons not to, it must be followed if we accept that this is a BLP1E case. If this was a "test case", lets have an article on the case. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 07:53, 13 April 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.