Talk:Simon Walsh

BLP noticeboard discussion
FYI to anyone interested in the BLP noticeboard discussion mentioned in this edit, the link is BLP noticeboard -- Limulus (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now archived: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive159 -- Limulus (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * lucinda l.jumaoas 2001:4454:4B9:AD00:74FD:C5D0:67DC:A86E (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

notable?
Is Simon Walsh notable for anything besides the recent "extreme porn" trial? I note that the article was only recently created, presumably in response to the trial. I'd suggest that this matter is far better covered at Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (where I have added some details). I believe Wikipedia policy is generally to avoid articles on people only notable for one thing - plus there are issues I think in that anyone reading about his article is now going to read about this trial as if it were the most important thing in his life... Mdwh (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the career in government might qualify. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He's one of 25 Aldermen of the City of London. He's been chair of a police authority, plenty of pre-charge press coverage. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This article does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Walsh is an alderman for a ward in the City of London, and has received minimal press coverage except for his trial, and most of the article is sourced to the subject himself.  We should consider People notable for only one event.  The trial itself may be significant, but does not justify an article for this individual.  I would suggest we put the article up for deletion.  TFD (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will note that my earlier statement ("the career in government might qualify") was based on Pigsonthewing claim at the noticeboard that the individual was notable prior to the trial and the fact that he was building the article at that time. However, I am not seeing any clear cut evidence of prior notability in the article at this point. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

He did have a City of London police horse named after him. I have no idea whether that makes you notable. Francis Davey (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If he merits a Wikipedia page it's daft to make no mention of the trial and his vindication. Also a bit disingenuous to mention his removal from the Fire Authority Board but not to give any backgroundElthamboy (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC).
 * See the discussions at WP:BLP/N on that topic. Collect (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Found this article after reading mention of his acquittal; agree with those who say it makes no sense to have it if the trial is not mentioned (would argue that as a minor politician, he's not overly notable), and in that regard I note the WP:BLP1E policy. In part, it states:

We should generally avoid having an article on a person [...] If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.


 * I thus suggest turning this article into a Redirect to Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. -- Limulus (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted above, reliable sources cover Walsh, other than for the trial. The problem is the removal of the trial info from this article, unnecessarily, given that Walsh has not only appeared on national TV to discuss it, but said that he wants wide coverage of it. A redirect to the trial article would not provide our readers with details of his fire, police and alderman roles. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How about this; besides the Lord Mayor of London David Wootton, do you know if any of the other two dozen aldermen have Wikipedia entries? If so, is it because they are notable as London aldermen or something else? I was skimming through some of the Wards of the City of London in hopes of finding aldermen articles without any luck. -- Limulus (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a red herring. How many of the other aldermen were mayoral appointments to the London fire authority, or chaired the City police authority? Besides, there is no deadline. Perhaps you could create some of them? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I frankly know nothing about London aldermen :) I was trying to see if there was some sort of threshold of notability which could earn one of them an article and then compare it to the amount of non-trial content here, that's all :) -- Limulus (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify my view: I don't have a huge problem if the article remains, but I thought it worth raising for discussion. However, the current situation of having an article, but not mentioning the trial, makes no sense to me. Whilst it shouldn't dominate the article, and is better covered in detail at Section_63_of_the_Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act_2008, that doesn't mean we can't mention it at all. I don't think a mention at all has BLP issues. Mdwh (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Chambers membership
The article contained a statement:

"As a barrister, he has been a self-employed member of the 5 Essex Court chambers since 1987."

with a link to the Chambers and Partners entry for that chambers. There are two problems with this. First, the "1987" is Simon's year of call not his year of entry into 5 Essex Court. That's what those brackets mean in the Chambers and Partners listing. However, 5 Essex Court's own site (which is a rather better source) does not list him. Reports of his trial indicate that he was excluded - I didn't want to mention them because we are avoiding mention of the trial.

Chambers and Partners is a source which is updated from time to time with information from chambers themselves, so it is often in arrears. It seems to me wrong in principle to list his membership in a chambers which does not advertise him as a member and ignorant to put a date when he didn't join it.

So, unless someone has a good reason, I will delete it again. Please don't revert it without explaining here why. If you do, please remove the "1987" which is just plain wrong. Francis Davey (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Dismissal from job working for Boris Johnson
Having just read this, I'm baffled as to why he was dismissed, and why he didn't take his employer to a tribunal. Might anyone know? --Rebroad (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)