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 case article, redirect the draft, no consensus on the individual. OK, it seems like the nominating editor has not given a coherently clear deletion reason - it seems like they are claiming that because the case was thrown out we can't host an article on it? Anyhow, it seems like nobody other than (partially) Nable has been convinced and that there are valid notability-based keep reasons. The merge arguments should probably be processed as part of a dedicated merger discussion. As for the draft, some editors have flagged it as redundant and nobody has indicated a reason otherwise, so it's a redirect. There hasn't been any discussion on the individual so flagging this as no consensus.

Finally and probably unnecessary (in light of DanielRigal's comment), I'll notify legalwikimedia.org about the question raised here just in case there is an actual legal issue on this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ball v Johnson

[edit]

[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)

Speedy-deletion per Db-g10: The application to prosecute and the application to indict discontinued and the summons (to appear, for Boris Johnson) quashed (all understood to be on a retrospective basis, "on the assumption that the summonses have not yet been issued") after the High Court [of England and Wales] (QBD (AC)) was understood [1][2] and reported (judgment reserved and not yet handed down [3]) to have allowed on 7 June 2019 an application for judicial review against the original decision made by Westminster Magistrates' Court on 29 May 2019. COI (undeclared) / BLP (defamation / prejudice [a fair trial]) / Misconduct. I am based in the same jurisdiction [within the same country], so I am of course legally bound, and supposed, to only say that the page should only be re-created if and when Boris Johnson is actually convicted of one, some or all of the said offences, if in the unlikely event that live criminal proceedings in respect of Boris Johnson successfully re-commence with the permission of the English courts. (The same legal territory as Tommy Robinson, really.) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case is notable due to the extensive media coverage it has received, and it is not an attack page to neutrally report on notable topics, regardless of the outcome of the case or what the motivations for bringing it are/were. If the article is not up-to-date and/or not neutral then this needs fixing, but it does not need deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is, if it was Marcus Ball who actually created and largely wrote this here in Wikipedia (or written by someone else on his personal behalf). You can't really otherwise explain the vanity 'Disambig' from that American NBA player [4]. It is therefore necessarily an attack page in and of itself. His wider personal motivations were (and are) irrelevant to THIS discussion as to whether a separate page about a as yet non-existent criminal prosecution case should remain or not on this site. Note, it would only be a Ball v Johnson had Westminster Magistrates' Court actually managed to successfully pass the application over to the Inner London Crown Court for indictment and a (more likely) trial in the Old Bailey. Even the title is so deliberately misleading as to be wrong as well. There is NO Ball v Johnson in the pre-indictment Magistrates' Court stage; that is a 'legal citation' of an actual trial, not the pre-indictment preliminary proceedings! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the Draft: as a duplicate, and I presume there is no need to keep its history because it is by the same author. delete the redirect (Marcus J Ball), let the search engine do its work (or nominate at RfD). No opinion about the article (leaning on delete, as I do not like these current event articles... it is hard to know if these are notable or the news scandal of the week.) but the nominator has not supplied a valid reason to delete, as reporting an existing legal case is not in itself an attack (the case may be an attack, reporting it is probably not an attack) - Nabla (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC) ~~PS: not leaning on delete, stick to no opinion, as I've eared of this in Portuguese news a few times, so it might be notable. 11:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

An 'internationally' widely reported case which did not, and will not (unless Marcus Ball managed to mount a successful appeal), in fact actually happen?! Can you give me another example in the case law of England, of a 'non-case' (it never *really* happened, as far as the Courts of England are concerned) having an article on this site? -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

194.207.146.167: you are missing the point, it is not a decisive factor (though it is ONE factor) if there is a case, what is important here in WP is if it gets talked about (a lot) in the news and by other people / politicians. I don't think this currently deserves a full article, at most this, as is, should be a one liner somewhere; but I understand that this may become huge, thus the excitement. - Nabla (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial UK press coverage, whether this goes to court or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the article. (No need to keep the separate draft.) This is nothing like a g10. Nothing at all. The claim of a COI is unsupported. The rest of the nomination is incoherent gibberish. The nominator claims "so I am of course legally bound" which is utter nonsense bordering on a legal threat. I am a British citizen sitting in Britain right now. While there are laws restricting what we can be report in ongoing legal matters in order to avoid prejudicing potential jury members, there is no legal obligation on British citizens to spout off incoherently demanding that non-UK based organisations do their bidding. Of course, I am perfectly sure that the WMF has no desire to prejudice a trial and that it would avoid doing so without requiring any legal compulsion. The good news is that the issue doesn't even arise as there is nothing in the article as currently written that is doing that at all. The first three paragraphs are OK while the final one does seem to be editorialising a little bit. That's not fatal to the article. It is not clear that this matter deserves an article of its own but it is a notable minor element of Boris Johnson's career and should be covered somewhere, albeit in not too much depth. So... Um... WTF is this nomination really about? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wtf is going on with the huge number of delsorts, some of which seem irrelevant? Men? Wales? Conspiracies? Politics and politicians? Is this AfD enough of a screw up to just knock it on the head here and now? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article seems straightforwardly to meet the general notability guideline 'if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list'. Looking at the event criteria, 'Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance'. As a layman, I'd have thought that this case will have a lasting significance in UK caselaw for its role in determining the scope of Malfeasance in office. Alarichall (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to note that this case is also addressed at Unlawful campaigning in the 2016 EU referendum#Private prosecutions. As I've said above, personally I'd have thought this case deserves its own entry, but if the article is deleted, we could redirect it there. Alarichall (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Boris Johnson article, which already has more information on the case than this article contains. It's a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I've added the important update that the legal case was thrown out by the High Court earlier this month (June). EddieHugh (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty strsightforward WP:GNG. And WP:EVENTCRIT.BabbaQ (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2019 (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.