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

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]
Sure. The source in question is actually called the Telegraph, A British national newspaper. The article is here [1]. Note the date: 7 Jan 2021. It is contemporary reporting of an event. Now in note d of WP:PRIMARY that I directed to, we read:
"A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."
That is what we are reading here. It is a primary source. See also WP:PRIMARYNEWS:
"most news stories are considered primary sources"
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the Telegram/Telegraph correction, that was an autocomplete 'helpful contribution'. But I have to say I don't think I share your view. Looking in to the actual policy page its based on, Lets look through note D together. The one that seems most likely to apply is investigative reports. This is not investigative reporting. Its not based on the first hand accounts of the reporter. That this is the correct reading is further supported by the supplemental definitions they give in that note on WP:NOR:

The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, and poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, and pottery.

This was not an inside view by a participant or anyone involved.

The University of California, Berkeley Libraries offers this definition: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer. Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period".

Nobody who wrote these articles is a participant in the events being studied.

Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."

Again, none of these articles seem to be first-hand accounts.

I appreciate that you're working from good faith here and I'm not implying otherwise. But reading our policies here I don't believe that the position the Telegraph article is a primary source holds up to any scrutiny. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I have pointed you to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. A newspaper article about an event, such as this, is a primary source. If you don't know that, you have some reading to do. I'll leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay, the actual policy its attempting to explain is WP:NOR which is why I quoted from that policy document extensively, point by point on related matters. If you don't wish to engage on the topic then don't engage, but snarky contributions like you just made do a disservice to the type of deliberations expected here. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:57, 7 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]
There is much secondary treatment of the individual [2], [3], [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider them primary, the analyse the situation rather than simply saying what happened. Oaktree b (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be quite a selective reading of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full text where they explain that he was the first person in his position in over a decade to "resign" for lack of a better work. [5]. They also present facts around the situation and what happens next. That's more than just Mr. xyz did ABC thing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:10, 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.[6][7] 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]
They are not primary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PRIMARYNEWS Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:18, 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]
Part of the healing process is to learn how to deal with trauma and how it's presented to others; to be blunt, we aren't here to help you get better. It's been documented, we report on it in a neutral tone and move on. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 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]

Strong Delete and Salt AGF that this person is who he says he is. We can get carried away in our enthusiasm to publish by our own standards. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in the Telegraph, the Times, the BBC, it's unfortunate that the individual has mental health issues, but the issue at hand is discussed rather briefly and in a very neutral tone. The resignation can be handled using neutral prose and helps add to the notability here (people are more apt to look for information about this person now that the affair is in the public realm; before the person would likely be only of interest to military history buffs). Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as no different than recent Canadian military commanders removed from their positions (one was hunting ducks with an illegal firearm, others have been involved in sexual assault cases). These are public figures and take public money for their positions, coverage of their transgressions helps the public understand what is being done with their money. This is really no different than any other scandal that Trump or is friends have been involved in, something was done, it's been documented and we can mention it here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, please read the sources. There was no "affair", the subject (and if he comes back to read this, thank you for your service, and keep hydrated, extremely important for handling or even curing depression), had some stuff to talk about and did so, nothing physical. Maybe consider striking "the affair is..." comment as inaccurate, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the "thing" that did or didn't happen. Whatever it was, he resigned, or talked about resigning, that's why the article is important. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of the rare cases where we should ignore all rules to delete an article. I'm just reading the nomination summary...Deletion is what I need to live...are we really going to keep an article on a marginally notable figure when we know that his life could end by doing so? C'mon. Life is more important than Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Delete. ResonantDis_tortion 16:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The arguments above about the number of sources are focused on the wrong thing, in my opinion. His notability hinges entirely on being forced to resign based on this accusation. This is the heart of WP:BLP1E, there is no notability outside of the conviction for this alleged relationship. That's not enough to sustain & expand an article on a living person. No matter how many RSes report on the conviction, we can't expand his article beyond that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it hangs on the relationship thing, but it helps. The OBE/CBE is a strong indicator of notability, he's a highly decorated solder in the UK military. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Major general is equivalent to the various US military commanders for which we have articles. This isn't some low-ranking GI that was forced out, it's one of the higher ups in the military. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an indicator we have a bunch of articles on non-notable military personnel. Just being a high-ranking officer is not enough, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ResonantDis_tortion 16:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Redirect to the List of British generals and brigadiers while preserving the edit history. Notability is borderline, and editors may find the subject to be notable in light of future coverage. The subjects own feelings should have no bearing on any of this. --Kerbyki (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find that this is a a biographical article of a relatively unknown, non-public figure, where the subject has requested deletion. In such cases we should delete. Frankly, while WP:N is met, it's not met by a lot. Sources in the article, other than the last and perhaps first (which I can't evaluate because it's dead) all appear to be primary. We have indicators of notability (CBE) but thus far no one has dug up much more... Hobit (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's move forward a bit, after he's passed on (for whatever reasons, even if he dies of old age). We have a highly decorated soldier from an elite unit with a long career that was the first in over a decade to be forced out for whatever reason. We take out the emotional component of the situation, we could still build a pretty decent article based on what's available. This isn't a chef in a canteen on some far-off island, he was the head of a major UK unit for at least a decade or more. We've build articles with less on the oldest living WW2 veteran for example. Some sources seem to suggest he retired, others say he was forced out; more than likely the was asked to leave or be fired. Whatever the reason, the military career alone is enough upon which to build an article; he was in an elite military unit, and was well publicized when the received the awards and was even used on social media posts by the unit before the "incident". Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And his article is about of the same quality of the others in the same Wiki category where his article is found. I can't see how the two dozen others are notable but this poor fellow isn't, when they've had the same job. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because his comments seem that he just wants to disappear altogether, not just from the incident, "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." Maybe the man just wants a private life. — Maile (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have confirmation it is him. I take these requests with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject's request. Give the guy a break. Our BLP policy permits this per this paragraph:
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relatively unknown subjects
  - Chris Bell was a "non-public figure" until he was fired. He did not seek out publicity.

WP:BLP links to this essay:

Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per our long-standing practice of courtesy deleting articles about individuals of marginal notability who request deletion. While arguably this individual meets the notability bar, there seems to be nothing meaningful to say beyond a recitation of simple bullet points of his military career, and calling out an unfortunate ending thereof. Therefore, at best marginal notability or a BLP1E, i.e. exactly the type of situation in which we afford that courtesy. Martinp (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Aside from the obvious reason to accede to his request, I'm not sure he is really notable actually. It isn't clear he commanded on operations at brigade or battalion level, and that wouldn't even guarantee notability. The CBE certainly doesn't make him notable, most reasonably successful COs get an OBE, same for CBE for brigadiers. For me, he's a case of BLP1E, and we should tread lightly for BLPs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have more generals with embarrassing details in their articles. Should we delete their articles too? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they have borderline notability, involve a non-public figure, and they request deletion, then yes. I think that's very reasonable no matter if a general, CEO, or some other similar role. Hobit (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favour of deletion of any non-notable figure, but that's not what I am talking about. As it happens their notability is not related to the embarrassing bits they keep trying to delete. I note that the subject here confesses that "I was a Major General in the British Army and therefore notable" but believes that they are no longer notable. This is a misconception; notability is not temporary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it is also a misconception that Major Generals are presumed notable on Wikipedia. We go on WP:BIO and sourcing. See WP:NSOLDIER. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - per Mjroots, DreamFocus, Serial and... every BLP we have that contains information that that subject doesn't like and would want removed from that article. This is an encyclopaedia, not Famdom. We document notable, supported facts and events and we don't tailor our articles to help subjects avoid embarrassment. If we started doing that, it would never end. We would be regularly gutting not only BLPs, but bio's in general, of any information the subject, or their families, or their friends, or their agents, or their fanclubs, or anyone else ftm, wants removed because they feel it may paint the subject in a negative light. WP is not censored. - wolf 23:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I echo this. What he reportedly did isn't that serious, he hansn't abused anyone or killed anyone... Embarassing, perhaps. It's not a reason to delete the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per common sense. He is notable on two counts, being a high-ranking officer and making a big mistake. Claiming that this simple article is a threat to his life is going way overboard. The news of his disgrace is out there; this article isn't going to change that. Neither does it somehow impede his efforts to rebuild his life. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we can let this go. J947 † ^edits 01:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is not so notable, and the sourcing is not such, that there is no room for discretion. As said above, there will be plenty of opportunity to review once this is no longer a BLP. Ingratis (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]