Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Sabisky

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 redirect to Second Johnson ministry. Opinion is split between keep, merge and delete. I see consensus not to keep this article, but no consensus about whether to merge something somewhere or just delete. The redirect is a compromise, allowing editors to figure out whether something should be merged. If nothing sticks in any target article, the redirect should be nominated for deletion. Sandstein 11:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sabisky

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Pure WP:BLP1E, plus WP:NOTNEWS etc. Yes, there is no shortage of reliable news sources that mention Sabisky given his recent statements but there is nothing to suggest he will attain any lasting notability (and quite a lot of reason to think he won't...). Hug^syrup 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom but merge key details to Second Johnson ministry for employing this loser. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Whether he remains notable in the long term is yet to be established, but he is currently the subject of front page news throughout the UK media, and also seems to have reached the attention of CNN. -- The Anome (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that is precisely why we have policies like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Hug^syrup 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge what can be merged into Second Johnson ministry per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he proves to be a significant figure, he will have an article here. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this man (whatever one might think of him!) is important. 31.48.111.123 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. That isn't a sufficient justification to keep the article. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SUSTAINED. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was a speaker at the 2015 London Conference on Intelligence, which is sufficiently important to have its own Wikipedia page (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:INHERITED. Robofish (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook case of WP:BLP1E. He didn't come to the attention of the media before this week, and now he's resigned after a few days of coverage, he may not again. Should only be recreated if he achieves more lasting notability in future. Robofish (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly true - an old appearance of his on the BBC's Politics Live is one of the clips that the current coverage keeps reshowing. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Sabisky Affair" (or something similar). Per WP:BLP1E I agree that the subject does not merit a biographical article. However the controversy over his appointment to the inner circle around Prime Minister Boris Johnson and then subsequent sacking/resignation has been a significant political event in the UK and does merit its own article. Oska (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT (note especially number 4) not all widely-reported events should have standalone articles. If this event is still the subject of significant analysis and coverage in the future (which honestly seems unlikely) then an article can be created at that time. Otherwise, it is exactly the kind of interesting but ultimately insignificant story that gathers a lot of press attention and then is rapidly forgotten. There are no shortage of those in the modern news cycle and to give each one an ‘XYZ affair’ article is both absurd and contrary to our policy on notability of events. Hug^syrup 07:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your referencing point 4 of WP:EVENTCRIT is wide of the mark. This is not a routine story. Having someone who holds such extreme, highly controversial and generally socially unacceptable views on women, race, welfare recipients etc be appointed to an advisory position close to the Prime Minister is not routine. Having people within his own party and the government publicly condemning the appointment and say they will refuse to take part in meetings where Sabisky would be present is not routine. I agree that "Sabisky Affair" is probably not the best name for the article but I continue to maintain that this political event satisfies notability and significance criteria. Perhaps we could simply call the article ""Andrew Sabisky appointment". If we do not do a Move (and so far I am the only one talking about such a resolution) then I would support a Merge of the material to a relevant article with a Redirect from "Andrew Sabisky". Oska (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and Merge~~ ~~anything worth keeping to Second Johnson ministry~~ per nom. No one had heard of him before yesterday and he will disappear again by tomorrow. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article about Andrew Sabisky being considered for deletion? Who first suggested it for such consideration? It is up to the man himself whether he deletes his controversial Reddit posts or his Twitter account - although both forums might retrospectively consider whether any of his controversial statements contravened their own rules - but he was appointed to public office, and his removal from that office is also a matter of public interest. Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson, and, by association, the Conservative Party, have to justify their decision ever to appoint him, even if they have now bowed to public outrage. In my opinion, the article about him and this recent appointment and removal should stand on the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA8F:AB00:B8B4:83C3:46C4:F41C (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you scroll up the page before typing? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2020

Material in the article should be retained - the easiest way to do that is to keep the article. Perhaps it could be subsumed under an article about Cummings. John Gibbons 3 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Keep as it meets WP:GNG, even though he was in his role for a relatively short time...and there's more than enough media coverage on the subject. This is Paul (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned WP:SUSTAINED above, which qualifies GNG and says the opposite. A battery of guidelines have been quoted on this page in support of the idea that "current affairs" are not necessarily Wikipedia's affairs. We do not have to cover every OMG moment. Really, those guidelines are there for a good reason. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth considering that he was an office holder at national level, albeit briefly. This is Paul (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFICEHOLDER doesn't apply here. That refers to elected officials. And anyway being an elected politician does not in and of itself confer notability. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It is not, because he was not. Political advisers are not officeholders. Hug^syrup 17:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Boris Johnson ministry per above. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The massive burst of publicity will die down, but is likely to keep him sufficiently notable into the future. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And if it does, the article can be recreated with whatever might make him notable in the future. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or we keep the article and get on with more useful things. Well, I could anyway. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on subjects that may become notable in the future. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Second Johnson ministry. Agree that the article should not be retained in present form, being that it does smack of WP:NOTNEWS; I do not think that WP:BLP1E applies here because the subject was mentioned in connection with more than just one event. Merging would also keep him listed at London Conference on Intelligence as a redirect, a good compromise between retention and outright deletion, due to the WP:SIGCOV surrounding him. StonyBrook (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. I see nothing here that goes beyond the "one event" of the current shitstorm. Neither his role on the Johnson staff nor his participation in that conference would be anywhere near making him notable in themselves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is a background advisor, not someone in a role that actually establishes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS without prejudice to recreation should sustained coverage of the subject occur in the future. --RaviC (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if a clearer consensus can be reached. BD2412 T 05:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Robofish. Sphinctor (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Sock !vote removed.[reply]
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Second Johnson ministry and merge any useful content there per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. b uidhe 07:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and lasting coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom, and/or Merge (added see comments.) The job is gone (any secondary mentioning is still related to the position) and there is no sustained notability for more than a pseudo biography or newspaper article. Also, I don't think WP:EVENTCRIT is "wide of the mark". The "shock" of any bigotry of the subject, especially considering the likely forced resignation, will only have any sustained notability if the issues are further advanced according to the inclusion criteria #2 and #4. Otr500 (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Second Johnson ministry; previously I did suggest keeping this but the news cycle has moved on to fresh concerns. This is Paul (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have added agreement to possible Merge. The valid "keep" votes seem to have stabilized so far at four and delete and merge both indicate a strong consensus that the article does not deserve stand alone status. It seems Second Johnson ministry would be an acceptable compromise. Otr500 (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E with no prejudice to re-creation. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2020 (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.