Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (3rd nomination)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Belfield

AfDs for this article:

[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)

This BLP was deleted in 2020 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (2nd nomination)) as the bio of a non-notable journalist (which at the time, he most definitely was). Since then, he's been convicted of stalking four people including a BBC journalist and sent to prison. This trial was, inevitably, well-covered by the press. The article has - somewhat unsurprisingly - been recreated recently, but of course it is now basically an article about a crime masquerading as a biography. Therefore, this new article fails WP:BLP1E, as he is only notable for a crime he committed. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Belfield didn't meet notability criteria in 2020. We don't create 'biographies' around routine criminal convictions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His YouTube channel had over 300,000 subscribers so I believe this constitutes some level of notability outside of the crimes committed Zerbstill (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Woodroar (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can present convincing evidence that he was notable before his arrest. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. A non-notable person becoming a criminal does not make him notable. And his socoal media presence doesn’t either, so YouTube views or subscribers are not by themselves indicative of WP:BLP notability. I vote delete this article again. Go4thProsper (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I advocate retention of the article as there is a lot of misleading information about this case. The indictment list was twelve but related to eight individuals as there were split timeframes, the jury found four 'doubly' not guilty and only two guilty as charged. The lesser charges were introduced to avoid a mistrial. The case is likely to form somewhat a precedent for the new Online Safety Bill (currently going through the UK Parliament) and in time the "R v Belfield" trial may be seen as a significant stake in the ground for freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The page at present does not contain much of the lurid BBC and Nottinghamshire Police chatter and I see as a good reference page. Twcc (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If R vs Belfield does become notable (which at the moment is WP:CRYSTAL), then an article could be created in the future about the case. This would still not make Belfield himself notable per WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N(E) Fails WP:GNG Atighot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 29 September 2022 (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.