Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Spelman


 * 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. waggers (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Spelman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. WP:One event. Notability is NOTINHERITED. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete If WP had an article for every teenager who had used drugs illegally or unwisely, especially minor cases like this, then a large proportion of the population would qualify for BLP and there would be little point in having any notability policy at all. Yes, notability is not inherited. --AJHingston (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * delete hasn't played at the highest level, and the only reason his illegal steroid use was "news" was because of who his mother is. Notability is not inherited. StarM 18:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This event has been a lead story in both national Television and Radio News as well as online, see ]https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=jonathan+spelman&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gl=uk] It is not the drug taking per se that is the most notable aspect, it is the High Court action. Unibond (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * comment then if the action is notable, there should be a brief mention there. Maybe. WP:ONEVENT StarM 02:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * there is a whole section Privacy injunction Unibond (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And how does this not fall under WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I see it there are already four reasons for notability, playing rugby for the Harlequins, playing for the national team, the High Court case and his parents being public figures Unibond (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Playing rugby for a national under-16 team is marginally notable at best. As for his parents, notability is not inherited.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK discounting the notable family we still have playing for the Harlequins, the High Court case (a major news story) and playing for the <16 national team Unibond (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And the guidance at NSPORTS is that this requires as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Is there such coverage of their sporting achievements?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He is not notable for playing rugby. If he played for the Harlequins senior team then yes, but he is just in their Academy. Age group players are virtually never deemed notable, even if they have played for the national youth team. If he continues with his rugby career then maybe he will become notable as a sportsman, but it is too early to tell at this stage and we don't predict the future. That just leaves the high court case, which is the WP:BLP1E quoted here. AIR corn  (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

*Keep Playing as a professional athlete for the quins is enough to get an article. The rest is just filler. AIR corn (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Currently this is just a one event and he does not yet meet the requirements at WP:RU/N. AIR corn (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comments at Talk:Caroline Spelman. Nowhere near GNG and a clear attempt at BLP1E.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I see no indication of Notability whatsoever. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for the several reasons listed above. If this is relevant in relation to privacy law or a sport, perhaps more suitable mention could be found in another article but not standing alone.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can see coverage of one event only. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:BLP1E. Clear case. ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Caroline Spelman. What makes the case notable is that she and her husband, according to source 1, are facing a six-figure legal bill over a rejected privacy injunction they sought.  In this case even I'll agree BLP1E should apply, because making a separate article for him is basically just misfiling information. Wnt (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete he's hardly even notable with that event. Even if it was it would be WP:BLP1E.. Edinburgh   Wanderer  22:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:BLP1E. Also, reads in part like it about one of his parents. If this article is truly about Jonathan, recommend rewrite to remove phrase, "involving Spelman's 17-year-old son." - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed that - it's all part of the 1E. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"A spokesman for Quins said: “Harlequins takes anti-doping very seriously and ­condemns drug use in sport. In accordance with International Rugby Board Regulation 21 and to preserve the integrity of the process, the club will not comment on any current or future cases until they have been concluded and all parties informed.” The RFU issued an identical statement. A spokeswoman for Tonbridge School said: “We cannot comment on pupils in our care.”"
 * Delete I also removed some of the contentious claims about the child from the Caroline Spelman article. Collect (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The Spelmans have not disputed that Jonathan Spelman took substances banned under Rugby Football Union guidelines. However, the RFU investigation is ongoing. This would never have been an issue without the court action to stop the newspapers from publishing the information that he allegedly ordered the substances over the Internet in late 2011, and they were found at his school. The specific claims in this Daily Star Sunday article are the cause of the BLP issues. Quote from the article:
 * Basically, this is at the "no comment" stage from the official parties involved, although it is not disputed that Jonathan Spelman is facing disciplinary proceedings.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with whether we should keep this article? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been a good deal of misunderstanding over the case, both here and at Caroline Spelman. The newspapers have jumped the gun, and a close examination of the coverage shows that Jonathan Spelman has not been punished by the RFU or Harlequins as yet, nor has he done anything which is a police matter. In view of this, there is no reason to keep the article Jonathan Spelman as it is classic WP:RECENTISM. Even at Caroline Spelman, it is not very notable other than for the injunction. Contrary to some newspaper reports, there is no official confirmation that the substances involved are steroids, only WP:WEASEL expressions like "it is understood that".-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:14, 9 March 2012 (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.