Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Steele


 * 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, per WP:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Steele

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the biography has only marginal notability, all of it stemming from a single event linked to news stories and the press about a leaked Dossier concerning Donald Trump. The Dossier has not been validated as genuine, yet we have an article on its alleged ghost writer. Without verified sources, this bio has issues for WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 'Comment - He is mostly notable for the single event, as you mentioned. He has notability for assisting the FBI in their corruption investigation of FIFA. That is stated explicitly in Reuters and other news stories. It does not seem that he is notable for any specific activity regarding the Litvinenko assassination, as there is only vague and contradictory information about his involvement in that investigation, from "sources" or hearsay. There is certainly a huge amount of press coverage about him due to the (probably discredited) dossier about Trump though.--FeralOink (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. His role in the FIFA corruption investigation + the Russia dossier, combined with a 20-year high-level career in M16, would seem to make WP:ONEEVENT inapplicable here. There is fairly extensive/robust/in-depth coverage of the man personally as well, although it is all quite recent. In all, I do think this gets over the hurdle. Neutralitytalk 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: You have suggested something I did not consider. Whether the Dossier is proven to be fake or not, his involvement in these events may in fact be notable just due to the fact the whole mess happened in the first place.  I am still concerned about WP:BLP issues for the subject of the article.  Either way it falls out, he is likely to get a lot of notoriety he may not want, and being in the public eye may not be good for an intelligence person's career.  We should consider the affect of a bio on someone in such a position. Unless he comes forward and publicly admits he is the author of this document, I still think there are issues with BLP.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He is a former intelligence person. He left MI6 in 2009. His work for the FBI (regarding FIFA) and for the Washington D.C. political intelligence company was done in his capacity as a principal of his private company, Orbis. He founded Orbis in March 2009, did the FIFA-related investigatory work in 2010-2012, and the Trump dossier work in 2016. He lives in a US$1.8 million mansion in England, according to multiple media sources, so I don't think he is out in the cold, so to speak. I am uncertain about how I feel regarding this article, so I will only make comments for now.--FeralOink (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: If the guy had an important role in the FIFA investigation then why are we having trouble finding pre-dossier reliable sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply. The rudimentary search tools generally used, including the WP tools above, make it hard to filter out the very highly trafficked, most recent news sites. But there is, as others note below, mention of CS with regard to his retirement, earlier intelligence work, FIFA investigation, etc. This despite the nature of his work making it his and his prior employer's aim not to receive media coverage. It is with these, and by this standard, that he should be judged. Cheers. 73.210.155.96 (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - widely discussed in the news. It's not a surprise that he wouldn't have been named before - British news articles wouldn't reveal the name of a British spy (former or present) unless he had been named in another country's news media first. Blythwood (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I don't think Steele was on anyone's radar prior to the dossier, conditions #2 and #3 of WP:BLP1E are not met. Steele, a 20-year MI6 agent and the co-founder and director of Orbis Business Intelligence, is not a low-profile individual. He had substantial roles in helping bring down Sepp Blatter in the 2015 FIFA corruption case and in the production of the dossier, both significant events. I don't know if his role in the murder investigation of Alexander Litvinenko was large or not. Examining some of the 30+ references currently in the article, many of them are rich with detail about Steele's life and history. We are not in danger of creating a pseudo-biography as there's plenty of material to work with. Also, I'm sure if/when additional evidence supporting or contradicting the dossier comes out, the case for notability will only be stronger. gobonobo  + c 03:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't help but notice that any article that says anything negative about Trump is being considered for deletion.  Christopher Steele has been in the news constantly for the last week.  If these allegations are proven (and who knows if they will be?), they have the potential to bring down the White House.  Of course the guy is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  Necropolis Hill (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. He was on the radar since he lost his cover in 1999: The D-Notice, according to investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, drew even more attention to the list. Read: http://www.duncancampbell.org/menu/journalism/guardian/cybersillies.pdf : "It was Monday May 10 [1999], when the eccentric US-based Executive Intelligence Review placed its latest report, 'The MI6 factor', on the internet. This contained the famous list of 115 MI6 officers, now so widely disseminated following a government D-notice drawing attention to it, that all foreign powers know who they are". Paul Wood wrote: Allegations of a sex tape involving Donald Trump could potentially be the biggest scandal US history – eclipsing the Watergate scandal that ended Richard Nixon’s presidency. --87.156.234.131 (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as this does not meet the third criteria of WP:BLP1E, which states,
 * Christopher Steele's role in the Russia dossier is significant, substantial, and well documented. Combine this with the other claims of notability in the article, and there can be no question as to the subject's notability. Brad  v  06:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Christopher Steele's role in the Russia dossier is significant, substantial, and well documented. Combine this with the other claims of notability in the article, and there can be no question as to the subject's notability. Brad  v  06:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article provides useful background on him (ie with extensive intelligence contacts in Russia), that helps contextualise his role in the dossier. He has also played a role in other high-profile espionage cases Xcia0069 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep is notable outside of the dossier, which at this point he is still not the confirmed author of. - Scarpy (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. That was already discussed here. This is not someone notable for only one event. Policy tells: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
 * 1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
 * 2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
 * 3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. ..."
 * Actually, none of these conditions was met. #1. No, he was involved in several other high profiles events, including FIFA corruption scandal and Litvinenko poisoning. #2 This is already a very high profile individual. #3. The event was significant, and the role was significant. This is someone plainly notable. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but move to Donald Trump dossier. Merge into Donald Trump–Russia dossier. It appears to that Steele falls into WP:BLP1E. Although he played some unknown role in the FIFA and Litvinenko investigations, no one has been able to find any reliable sources covering those roles, so they evidently weren't newsworthy. The guy is clearly low-profile as he avoided the public spotlight until the dossier became public. On the other hand, the dossier is obviously highly notable and will continue to receive heavy media coverage. This coverage is already swamping Steele's biography and will continue to do so more and more. And we have no article dedicated to the dossier, as far as I know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How come? According to the sources currently quoted on the page, he was a case officer of Litvinenko and his role in investigating FIFA scandal was significant. These events are highly notable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a new article about the Donald Trump–Russia dossier. I'm not sure how you could possibly merge this article into it, as there's already a discussion about merging that with 2016 United States election interference by Russia. I also don't understand what advantage there would be in merging all of this together, other than as a roundabout path to deletion. Brad  v  20:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing me to that new article. I've changed my !vote accordingly, and will weigh in on that other merge proposal at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia . I don't see much of a merge discussion there. Maybe I'm missing it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake, there is no active merge discussion there. The previous one about merging with this page appears to have concluded. Nevertheless, the remainder of my comment above still stands, as well as my comments previously about WP:BLP1E. Brad  v  20:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment- I think this one is a Keep as per WP:SNOW. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - see also withdrawn merge proposal based on BLP1E Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia. Widefox ; talk 02:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak merge with Donald Trump–Russia dossier article. A profile of Steele would, I think, be better suited as a subsection of the main dossier article—rather than a fully fledged Wikipedia entry. Frevangelion (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the connection to Seele is based on allegations. Wikipedia is not a zone for gossip-mongering, as I repeatedly claimed while defending my !vote to delete the dossier article on the discussion page. Frevangelion (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. After careful deliberation, and the claims made about Steele's relevance to issues other than the dossier—as made apparent by 73.210.155.96—I move to keep this article from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frevangelion (talk • contribs) 13:42, January 19, 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bradv. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Christopher Steele is an outed former intelligence officer responsible for a significant period for the Russia desk for a British intelligence service, who also contributed to the FIFA and other investigations since retiring. Hence, he is an individual notable apart from this event, and so should have a separate article. (The fact that recent events have brought most of this information to the fore is immaterial to the question of his notability. Jack Welch was a notable business person before taking the helm of GE; that his taking this last position made him the more noteworthy was no argument for lessened importance of prior efforts, or for keeping him to the GE article.) Steele's article can evolve away from its overemphasis on the dossier matter, which should eventually become a short section, with a main article tag pointing to the full article, so this article can focus on the life and career of the man. Cheers. 73.210.155.96 (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable for the investigation of FIFA previous to the dossier event. WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply -  et al. - Steele is not a low-profile guy, not in 1986 after becoming President of the Cambridge Union debating society, not 1999 after the D-Notice blew up his cover up, not as case officer to FSB-defector Alexander Litvinenko, not 2015 by the Bicentenary Cambridge Debate laughing with former Tory leader Michael Howard, Baron Howard of Lympne (read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4113576/Former-MI6-spy-hiding-Russians-Trump-dirty-dossier-1million-two-years-working-undercover-supplying-FBI-information-cracked-open-corruption-FIFA.html)... he was one of the more eminent Russia specialists for the MI6 (read: https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/intelligence-sources-vouch-credibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author). He didn't tried to avoided public spotlight: he has a well groomed Linked in Page https://uk.linkedin.com/in/chris-steele-87151a6a?trk=prof-samename-name.


 * Is it even possibel to be low-profile after setting up his own intelligence agency between Buckingham Palace and US-Embassy? Steele told journalist David Corn he had taken his dossier to the FBI and told: 'The story has to come out'. He was prepared for the buzz since October 2016! He was feeding the buzz - pun intended. Good marketing. Not only the search tools are rudimentary, we were not searching in German, Arabic (Qatar), Russian or Italian media... Added somthing from Der Spiegel to his article. --87.159.120.134 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that all of the cited reliable sources (including those you cite in your reply) were published in the last week, after the dossier became public. Unless someone finds pre-2017 sources indicating otherwise, Steele's prior work wasn't high-profile enough to be covered by the news media. I see two plausible explanations for this: either his prior roles have been recently exaggerated, or his roles were previously hidden from the media due to their sensitive nature or his previous spy work. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @IP. You are making very good points here. Please create named account and contribute to this and other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. conditions #2 and #3 of WP:BLP1E are not met. A significant individual with massive allegations and a non private life history. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously sufficient coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.