Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Brand prank calls row

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. The information presented in the individual article's is brief and the predominant form of information is through the link to this page. Consensus has been formed below to keep the article, if this is of less significance in the future, request deletion at that time - were that time to ever come. Caulde 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Brand prank calls row

WP:NOT#NEWS. All of the relevant infomation is included in The Russell Brand Show (radio show), Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross and Andrew Sachs anyway. See WP:NOTE also. Dalejenkins | 13:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a big story with implications not just for the celebrities involved, but for the ongoing debate into governance of the BBC. So far, the Prime Minister, and leader of the opposition have spoke out. The police and telecommunications watchdogs are investigating and the Director General of the BBC has personally suspended an A-list Celebrity. Yes, some of the information is on other pages, but if there was no article on the incident, we'd need to include the information separately on The Russell Brand Show (radio show), Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross, Friday Night with Jonathan Ross (to explain he suspension), Andrew Sachs and whatever article we have on public controversies and the BBC. It is far more efficient to put a brief sentence or two on each and then link to one main article. Merging isn't all about notability, it is also about "best organisation of material". There are also BLP issues here, and it is far easier to police one article than split and repeat the information over many.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough at the moment to warrant its own article. All the information here can be placed under different articles, as the nominator suggested; such as under controversy sections and the like. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per ScottMacDonald. There is a major UK news story, with widespread media attention, political comment, two A-list celebrities suspended and so on - certainly enough notablity for a seperate. It is also a lot easier to have one page with all relevant information, rather than spread on many different pages. And with investigations coming up, the story will run on for a while yet.--UpDown (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — How is this not notable? Anyone in the UK right now will be hearing this as the top story on every news channel and in every newspaper. They are two of the biggest celebrities in the UK and the British Prime Minister has commented on the issue. This needs to be kept, although I'd rename to make clear Jonathan Ross' involvement. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm currently watching the ITV Lunchtime News and the first 7 minutes of were all on this story - so clearly notable. Yes the info could theoretically be split into other articles, but surely keeping it in one place is simpler (and consistent with e.g. Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy - the info in this could just as easily have been put into related articles). davidprior (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - EASILY passes sig. coverage in mutiple reliable sources.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7696714.stm

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Jonathan-Ross-And-Russell-Brand-Georgina-Baillie-Wants-BBC-To-Sack-Pair-For-Andrew-Sachs-Call/Article/200810415131828?lpos=Showbiz_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15131828_Jonathan_Ross_And_Russell_Brand%3A_Georgina_Baillie_Wants_BBC_To_Sack_Pair_For_Andrew_Sachs_Call

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/media/bbc+suspends+ross+and+brand/2682487

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3278635/Jonathan-Ross-and-Russell-Brand-suspended-by-BBC-over-Andrew-Sachs-calls.html

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5037322.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/29/jonathan-ross-russell-brand-suspended

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23578878-details/BBC+suspends+Ross+and+Brand/article.do

Leading story as of 29/10 13:40pm on all of the above. 84.9.58.85 (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a leading story today, yesterday, and maybe for a few days to come - but so are a lot of subjects, and not all of them have their own article. Will this subject be so notable in ten years time, or is it something that could just be added to the relevant articles? ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now that the WP:BLP1E issues have been mostly sorted out, I feel that this story is notable, and is already having repercussions with regard to the governance of the BBC. It may be a pretty stupid-looking story, but it's gained a huge amount of press coverage, and the attention of many senior politicians. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is notable and BLP1E issues have been resolved. McWomble (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting. I recommended Deletion for Georgina Baillie's article, but as the WP:BLP1E issues have been resolved this seems ok. Concerning WP:NOT#NEWS; I'd say that this avoids that by merit of not being "routine news coverage" (and by having Mr G Brown stick his oar in), although I'm still not sure that this can't be better covered in one of the aforementioned articles, or perhaps in Criticism of the BBC. So it's a Keep, but only a weak one at the moment. one brave monkey 14:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But to be honest, which "one" of the articles? It effects the TV stars, Sachs, their respective shows. One article with all the info on saves a lot of repeated information on other pages, and I believe its better to have all info in one place.--UpDown (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd randomly disperse the words between all of them. (I don't know). one brave monkey 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - massive coverage in all British news outlets including up-market respectable broadsheet newspapers. Considered likely to significantly influence BBC editorial policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilandi (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a major new event concerning a major British institution, two of the biggest celebrities in the UK and the government is worthy of an article by every measure. I don't even understand why we're discussing it. Also aree that article name should include Ross.RaseaC (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major news story that will have/is having political reverberations, both within and without the BBC. The story is notable, Baillie isn't (yet, though she will be as her career rockets after this). --Ged UK (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The moment I read about this I turned to Wikipedia for unbiased and factual information on the subject. It was of course heart-warming (but perhaps predictable) to get to the article (and the one on Georgina Baillie which preceded it) and find the customary crowd of Deletionists already hard at work trying to suppress the material because of its populist leanings. My own view is that the existing material is worthy of retention. Kind regards--Calabraxthis^(talk) 14:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is all discussed in the other relevant articles and adds nothing new. It's far more appropraite to have this stuff on Ross' and Brand's page etc. --Tefalstar (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To avoid WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM on main biographies. The article title also needs to mention Ross. — Realist² 14:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All sorts of resources here, shows plenty of notability given circumstances. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I cannot believe people want to delete this article when it is such major news and will be relevant throughout time. I can only suggest people who wish to delete are Brand or Ross fans wanting to play down the incident. As you all are aware, this is a paperless encyclopaedia and to delete an article on a news story this big would be unjustified. It is stupid to argue this is not a big enough story. 80.42.182.225 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I want it kept too. But there's no need to abuse those who are saying otherwise, see WP:AGF. There's no need to assume they are stupid, or are fans of Ross (or is that the same thing ;) )--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. That wasn't supposed to sound like abuse in anyway. Although I cannot see any other reason why people would want to delete this article, and there is no denying this is a big news story, the point is taken.
Keep - per above. The amount of coverage, and comments from both David Cameron and Gordon Brown show to my that this passes notability guidelines. However, I would suggest mentioning Ross in the pagename. Gran² 15:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Russell Brand Show (radio show), with mentions in the other articles mentioned in the nomination. First, let me say that I am definitely not a fan of either Ross or Brand. But after a while, this incident will have been largely forgotten about. Just because Gordon Brown and David Cameron have talked about it doesn't mean it's worthy of an article. --RFBailey (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep: Yesterday (28 October) this article is featured as a lead story on the main news on two tv channels. Today it is the front page story ion virtually all the daily newspapers and lead story on all lunchtime news programmes. This is a major news story in the UK, and as such should certainly be kept. ArnoldSideways (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage satisfies source and notability policies. Hey, it's snowing here in Ithaca I think it's snowing on this AfD as well! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - major news story, can't see why it's been put up for deletion in the first place to be honest. Page should be renamed to include Jonathan Ross mind... Cavie78 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any rename can be discussed on the talk page. Feel free to join the discussion.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't think it's worth all the fuss but people want to know so it should be on Wiki.217.44.182.20 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for the moment. It's presently relevant so I think we should keep it, maybe in a year when it is no longer relevant we should delete it. Nemesis646 (talk)

A good point there. This AfD should not have been started when the incident had only really just blown up. It should have left to see what happended, so if in a week it'll had all blown over it would have been a easy delete. I think this should now been snowed.--UpDown (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a noteworthy incident. Mayalld (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mayalld, the plethora of news sources and the interest by the leaders of the UK. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is major, major news in Britain, with even the Government & Prime Minister intervening. Definitely worthy of an article. Giant Snowman 17:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per all previous keeps. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already stated. If this blows over then it can be merged with the two mens articles, if they end up getting fired then that is a pretty notable event, a landmark incident where the BBC/British public has drawn the line in the entertainment world and said 'thou shalt not cross'. If in a couple of weeks they are back in their jobs just add a paragraph or two to each presenters pages.--EchetusXe (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as if it will matter at this point): Yes, it's very important right now, but it's just a news story! Wikipedia is not for things that are relevant only as news. As has been pointed out, all information can be kept on the show's page. If this page would be deleted in a year when it's no longer relevant, then it shouldn't have its own page right now. -Platypus Man | Talk 17:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this row is not over yet, it could turn into a incident similar to Celebrity Big Brother. An incident cannot be assessed properly while it is going on, this AfD should have waited.--UpDown (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons already stated. -supervegan 17:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its relevant, could end up destroying two great men's careers. Should be kept for historic purposes.
Keep. The British PM actually had to make a public statement. Cribananda (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that a motion was started in the Commons - more sign of notablity. And Brand has resigned.--UpDown (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clear evidence of independent notability. DWaterson (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that it's snowing Passes WP:N and WP:V.--Pmedema (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2008 (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.