Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bell (British Army officer): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:58, 6 October 2023

Chris Bell (British Army officer)

[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)

I am the subject of this article.

I am suffering with PTSD, depression and anxiety. This article re-traumatises me constantly, which is a threat to my life.

Over 3 years ago I was a Major General in the British Army and therefore notable. But now I am a part time, non-notable private person with very serious mental health issues arising from the events you record. Given the time elapsed and the very serious impact on my health I would like this article to be deleted, for me to be forgotten on Wikipedia, and allowed to try and rebuild my life in some form. The suffering I am living with is beyond any justification or negligible public interest given the time elapsed. Individuals matter, as does time. The notable/public interest calculus can't be locked to a single event at a single moment in time, leaving those of us impacted struggling to live what is left of our lives. By any measure that must be wrong.

Deletion is what I need to live, just as several leading newspapers have acknowledged and acted on.

I won't be monitoring this so please don't reply here. I'm sure you'll find a way to e-mail if you need to. By all means consider "Disambiguate", "Redirect", "Merge", or "Draftify" - I have no idea what they are.

Finally, at the very least the finding was that "on the balance of probability" I lied to the Army. Th truth is I didn't but that makes no difference anymore. My life is fast fading.

Please help. This is beyond serious for me now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilf1642 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - it has long been established that subjects of articles do not get to dictate to Wikipedia whether or not they have an article. He admits that he meets the notability threshold. That he has made a poor decision that has impacted on his life is not our concern. We only need to be concerned that BLP is adhered to, which it appears to be. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but what is the notability argument here? per WP:SOLDIER there are no longer presumed notability guidelines for soldiers, so for this article to be kept we would need significant coverage in independent reliable and secondary sources. I am not convinced there is secondary sourcing and note that articles about a particular event, published in a newspaper, would be primary sources. I have not researched this properly yet, so not making a !vote, but I think any keep !vote needs to be based on the notability and not just a rejection of the subject's appeal for anonymity. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on this particular case yet, but CBEs are often thought to pass point 1 of WP:ANYBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: The London Gazette is a secondary source, as are The Telegraph and other sources used in the article. As Phil Bridger says, the CBE brings this person over the notability threshold. Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No these are WP:PRIMARY. Please see especially note d on that page. As for Phil Bridger's point, it is a good one, and he couches it appropriately: "often thought", but please also read WP:ANYBIO which says, inter alia:
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
There is no automatic presumption of notability for a CBE. However, the existence of a CBE is likely to point to significant secondary sources from which an article could be written. Likely but not guaranteed. It can tell you where to look, but we are still where we were. If there is a notable subject here, you need multiple significant mentions in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. Those are what the article would be built from. None are in the article to date. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly expound on why you think the telegram reporting is a primary source? It doesn't seem to qualify under your linked policy page, and nothing in note D seems to apply to it either. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Outside of the incident the individual was sacked from their job for, I am not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also applies here. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLPREQUESTDELETE says Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed. That does not apply here, the article is well sourced, and there is an editor opposing deletion (me). Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says
"Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."
Furthermore the article is sourced with primary sources. There is no secondary treatement of the subject. This very much pertains. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an IAR case. The core of BLP is that we must tread lightly when covering living people, especially people who barely meet our notability bar. The subject of this article is a marginally notable person; we should let him live his life in peace without us intruding. If The Telegraph or another major broadsheet publishes an obit for him, we can revisit this issue --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guerillero and Jenks24. Notability for an article here is marginal. There is no presumed notability, even for a CBE, and I cannot find anything significant in secondary sources about the events leading to the CBE. In many cases this kind of article might be kept on the back of the CBE, but notability is not automatic on that point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reports in Telegraph and the Times. Ex head of 77th Brigade - not just any general Lyndaship (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable under WP:GNG.[1][2] WP:BLP has no rationale, so cannot be applied. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are WP:PRIMARY so do not count towards meeting GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is upset by one sentence in the article which reads: In January 2021, Bell was directed to resign his commission after the Army Board found he had lied about the nature of his relationship with a female subordinate. He did something he knew he wasn't suppose to, and doesn't want people to know he got caught doing it. That is not a valid reason to delete an article. The awards he's won, the rank he had, and the coverage of him all add to his notability. The news coverage mentions how rare it is for someone of his rank to be forced out. Dream Focus 10:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as an exception because it's the right thing to do. The subject is not a public figure and, although major generals are usually notable, this is not a famous WWII-era commander who commanded vast numbers of troops in famous battles but a career officer who attracted little coverage until one incident at the end of his career. It does not seem in keeping with our goals that a 30-year career is summarised with a list of positions and awards (which would be roughly the same for any contemporary army officer following a similar career path) and then an almost throwaway line about a scandal. Who among us would want our careers summarised that way if we became notable? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ANYBIO says that someone is likely to be notable if they pass one of its criteria, it still needs to be shown at AfD that they are notable. The only event that is notable fall under BLP1E, and even then that reporting isn't sustained. Finally I'm of the same opinion as Guerillero, that per the spirit of BLP we should tread lightly when it comes to living people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. Sorry, but the chap's been an O/C Scots Guards, Brigade Commander and Major-General, OBE and CBE. He passes WP:ANYBIO #1 by mileage.If he's not notable, then very few soldiers would be. And while I'm sympathetic to anyone with PTSD, I suspect that if we lost the last line of the article, he would be in less discomfort. Talking of BLP1E, that's completely irrelevant: his notability rests on his achieving high rank in a national army and receiving some of the most important recognition awards available. If anyone thinks that his notability rests on his having gone over the side at one point in that career, then... that's odd, to say the least. Serial 12:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article had been challenged before January 2021, it would have been a pretty clear keep at that point. I've gone ahead and revdeled some unsourced accusations that were tossed in, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 *:::{{re|Sirfurboy}} The ''London Gazette'' is a secondary source, as are ''The Telegraph'' and other sources used in the article. As Phil Bridger says, the CBE brings this person over the notability threshold. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 08:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 *::::No these are [[WP:PRIMARY]]. Please see especially note d on that page. As for Phil Bridger's point, it is a good one, and he couches it appropriately: "often thought", but please also read [[WP:ANYBIO]] which says, inter alia: {{tqb|People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.}} There is no automatic presumption of notability for a CBE. However, the existence of a CBE is likely to point to significant secondary sources from which an article could be written. Likely but not guaranteed. It can tell you where to look, but we are still where we were. If there is a notable subject here, you need multiple significant mentions in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. Those are what the article would be built from. None are in the article to date. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 09:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
+*:::::Could you possibly expound on why you think the telegram reporting is a primary source? It doesn't seem to qualify under your linked policy page, and nothing in note D seems to apply to it either. -[[Special:Contributions/50.234.188.27|50.234.188.27]] ([[User talk:50.234.188.27|talk]]) 13:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per [[WP:BLP1E]]. Outside of the incident the individual was sacked from their job for, I am not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I think [[WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE]] also applies here. [[User:Jenks24|Jenks24]] ([[User talk:Jenks24|talk]]) 08:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 *:BLPREQUESTDELETE says ''Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed''. That does not apply here, the article is well sourced, and there is an editor opposing deletion (me). [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 08:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)