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


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While there is precedent for BLP articles to be deleted upon a "no consensus" result, that applies when the material in the BLP presents the subject inaccurately. There has been no real argument here, even from the nominator, that anything in this article is not accurate. Given that, a "no consensus" result defaults as normal to retaining the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Chris Bell (British Army officer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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: 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)
 * 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)
 * Sure. The source in question is actually called the Telegraph, A British national newspaper. The article is here . 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: That is what we are reading here. It is a primary source. See also WP:PRIMARYNEWS: Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 . 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:
 * This was not an inside view by a participant or anyone involved.
 * Nobody who wrote these articles is a participant in the events being studied.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It says 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)
 * There is much secondary treatment of the individual, , . Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * These are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That appears to be quite a selective reading of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep Reports in Telegraph and the Times. Ex head of 77th Brigade - not just any general Lyndaship (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable under WP:GNG. WP:BLP has no rationale, so cannot be applied.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * These are WP:PRIMARY so do not count towards meeting GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They are not primary. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARYNEWS Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted, they are not primary; that is a misreading of that essay. Furthermore, there additional sources. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.   D r e a m Focus  10:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Struck given the work of Serial Number 54129, and the current state of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Since we're doing this, I'd reaffirm my vote also. Note only did he always pass ANYBIO in spades already, but further evidence of the importance of the positions he held has since been added. It's good to see that confirmed by even delete voters, who literally recognise that this is a usual article. BLP1E clearly does not apply; notability is soundly established—even the subject himself acknowledges that, and NOTTEMPORARY applies, he has held several positions of trust and high rank (he was an ensign at the 1997 Trooping of the colour, for Pete's sake—that's out of hundreds who could have been). Finally, no one has established how removing a well-sourced article—a potential good article in other circumstances—actively helps maintain and improve the encyclopedia, per IAR. People are throwing IAR around like it is a get-out-of-jail-free card, but ay is, if one reads it, very short and very simple: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Note, the sole criterion against which it should be used: maintenance and improvement of the encyclopaedia, not white-washing biographies. By the way, I assume that means there must be such a thing as "IAR restore", too, although I've never heard of that either. I suppose at least restoring policy-abiding guidelines to project space could be argued to be an improvement to the encyclopedia. But if we allow article subjects to dictate our content, then we are on a slippery slope; the thin end of the wedge; and through the looking glass considering what we are hear for. It's ironic, but the OP, having thrown their hand grenade in and made it clear they are "not monitoring" the aftermath, might even be pleasantly surprised. His military honours and career are fully contextualised, with few negative aspects noted—indeed, there were none to note!—a brave and intelligent man need not hide; the one thing he might still disapprove of has been reduced to its relevant weight with a number of views present which are supportive of his position (again, as the OP notes in his nom). As Prince George might've said, "I mean, boil my brains, it’s only a dictionary. No-one’s asked us to eat ten raw pigs for breakfast. Good Lord, I mean, we’re British, aren’t we?"Apologies, of course I know we are not! :) This, comrades, is an article with which both the project and the subject can be satisfied.   Serial  18:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Since we're doing this, I'd reaffirm my vote also. Note only did he always pass ANYBIO in spades already, but further evidence of the importance of the positions he held has since been added. It's good to see that confirmed by even delete voters, who literally recognise that this is a usual article. BLP1E clearly does not apply; notability is soundly established—even the subject himself acknowledges that, and NOTTEMPORARY applies, he has held several positions of trust and high rank (he was an ensign at the 1997 Trooping of the colour, for Pete's sake—that's out of hundreds who could have been). Finally, no one has established how removing a well-sourced article—a potential good article in other circumstances—actively helps maintain and improve the encyclopedia, per IAR. People are throwing IAR around like it is a get-out-of-jail-free card, but ay is, if one reads it, very short and very simple: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Note, the sole criterion against which it should be used: maintenance and improvement of the encyclopaedia, not white-washing biographies. By the way, I assume that means there must be such a thing as "IAR restore", too, although I've never heard of that either. I suppose at least restoring policy-abiding guidelines to project space could be argued to be an improvement to the encyclopedia. But if we allow article subjects to dictate our content, then we are on a slippery slope; the thin end of the wedge; and through the looking glass considering what we are hear for. It's ironic, but the OP, having thrown their hand grenade in and made it clear they are "not monitoring" the aftermath, might even be pleasantly surprised. His military honours and career are fully contextualised, with few negative aspects noted—indeed, there were none to note!—a brave and intelligent man need not hide; the one thing he might still disapprove of has been reduced to its relevant weight with a number of views present which are supportive of his position (again, as the OP notes in his nom). As Prince George might've said, "I mean, boil my brains, it’s only a dictionary. No-one’s asked us to eat ten raw pigs for breakfast. Good Lord, I mean, we’re British, aren’t we?"Apologies, of course I know we are not! :) This, comrades, is an article with which both the project and the subject can be satisfied.   Serial  18:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Based on his Linkdin page, it would appear he is referring to his financial well-being as opposed to mental/physical health. (fyi/imo) - w o lf 03:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Delete . ResonantDistortion 16:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My vote struck due to article updates, with a more reasonable incident summary with due weight.ResonantDistortion 19:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just seeking clarification; are you in agreement with the 'delete' !vote directly above? And if so, are you striking your 'delete' !vote, do you still have a position? (re: do you support keeping? merging? other?) Cheers - w o lf  03:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 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. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ResonantDistortion 16:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Maybe he wants a private life/disappear altogether. Really? Then why not take down this website: https://www.christopher-bell.co.uk/ which has been updated recently with new appointments. Rupples (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per subject's request. Give the guy a break. Our BLP policy permits this per this paragraph:
 * Biographies of living persons
 * Chris Bell was a "non-public figure" until he was fired. He did not seek out publicity.
 * WP:BLP links to this essay:
 * Who is a low-profile individual
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep based on Rupples‘ observation on the inconsistency of General Bell’s LinkedIn profile and the sad-sounding deletion request above.
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * "...our long-standing practice of courtesy deleting articles about individuals of marginal notability who request deletion." - Our what now? We have a long-standing practice of citing a policy or guideline as a reason to delete. Do you have one? - w o lf 05:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Reaffirm my delete. Subsequent to my vote, the article has been expanded with reasonably sourced material (and there are some discussions of Bell's LinkedIn profile vs article.) However, my argument still applies. The material (now) in the article is essentially a bio, together with material that Bell said when interviewed in a book/documentary/whatever, not about himself but about the war. So while he does likely pass our notability bar and so we *can* have an artilce about him, I still find his notability is marginal, and so we can and should afford the courtesy of a delete if he as the subject wishes. (I trust we are sufficiently persuaded it is indeed the subject not an impersonator making this request, but haven't investigated that.) Martinp (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "So while he does likely pass our notability bar and so we *can* have an artilce about him..." Cool, that's all we need. - w o lf 05:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I have more generals with embarrassing details in their articles. Should we delete their articles too? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. - w o lf  23:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I'm thinking of this guy who repeatedly raped his daughter. (He got eighteen months.)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so if that guy writes in a clumsily created AfD that his BLP is keeping him up at night and destroying his life, (and we confirm it's really him - have we actually done that here?) do we also delete, salt, pepper and lightly butter his article as well? Ya know... just to give the poor guy a break 'cuz child rape has nothing to do with the military so it shouldn't be a wiki-article, and one of the cites was written on Tuesday so that shouldn't count, etc., etc.... - w o lf  19:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As it happens, the US Supreme Court took up this very issue (whether rape is a military or civil matter, not whether toast should be buttered) as a result of this case and others. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would hope that Grazioplene has trouble sleeping at night. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 *  Delete , we can let this go.  J947  † edits 01:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Given there's now strong doubt this is him, genuinely, I'll sit this out.  J947  † edits 03:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete Barely notable; we should respect a BLP subjects wishes in a marginal case like this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per A. B. and Martinp. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete it's acceptable to delete an article about a relatively unknown, non-public figure at the request of the subject (WP:BIODEL). Major generals fall into this category - they do not hold public office and typically have a very low public profile, unless maybe if they play a substantial role in a major war. The article is largely based on official announcements, press releases and the like, which indicates that coverage of the subject is very limited. The only exception is one minor news story which has zero long term significance.  Hut 8.5  08:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. A cursory look suggests that there are more mentions of him on Google Books and in news articles than featured in this article, and according to his own website he was Private Secretary to CGS. This is before we even get to the notability of his exit from the Army. Incidentally I've tried reaching out to people who may be able to help with Bell's apparent mental health issues, so that hopefully we don't have to wait for an obituary as one editor commented. &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk). 18:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I presume that by CGS you mean the Chief of the General Staff (United Kingdom)? Please do not use abbreviations when they can't be expected to be understood by nearly all Wikipedia editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * People shouldn't be !voting on content they don't understand. - w o lf  00:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR Delete, just because we can have an article does not mean we should. This is an encyclopedia, not fandom-true.But it's also not an index of every soldier, and there's nothing lost by not having an article on Bell. Star   Mississippi  19:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, ultimately a low-profile individual with very little notability, not even the minor incident which ended his career got too much attention. Normally I would consider the page very borderline, given the subject request I don't see too many problems in deleting it. Cavarrone 19:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Before making a decision here it might be an idea to take a look at the subject's Linked-in page.. Was leaning delete, now . . . ? Rupples (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note the numerous attempts by largely SPA editors in the article history to remove or use less specific wording about the subject's resignation from the Army. Rupples (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, on LinkedIn, General Bell looks like he’s doing much better than he claims above. I wonder if someone was spoofing his identity when they asked this article be deleted. Or, perhaps he’s putting on a brave face on LinkedIn and really suffering. Or, maybe he’s just playing us to get rid of that embarrassing incident.
 * Perhaps we keep the article for now and tell the nominator to use the VRT system to confirm their identity and explain their request. Is that the appropriate procedure to follow?
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant of the Linkedin page, we should be asking for identity confirmation. But I do suspect this is him.  Hobit (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course he wants to get rid of this "embarrassing incident". As seen on the Linkdin page, he is pursuring a very lucrative, but also very public career in consulting. Before anyone hires him, they're likely to look up his WP page first (anybody who's anybody has one these days, and it's the goto source to check people out). In short, this page is costing him money, (which can be very "distressing" indeed). Agree with confirming if the OP is really him or not, (as noted above), and/or was this AfD written by an agent/lawyer/PR firm on his behalf? This Linkdin page is a very strong reason for him to seek deletion here, but considering the impressive, and quite notable career laid out on that profile, it is also a pretty strong reason to keep this page. - w o lf  03:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of unbolding your keep . I hope that is okay. You can only have one bolded !vote in a deletion discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. I had done that for emphasis as opposed to !voting, but point taken. - w o lf 12:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My keep vote was solely based on the fact that he has been mentioned in RS. However I was concerned when he says Deletion is what I need to live, just as several leading newspapers have acknowledged and acted on coupled with his former role at 77th Brigade (United Kingdom) whose task is to control the narrative. Lyndaship (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So this is an attempt at PROMO. I will say, for someone with PTSD, he's doing quite well for himself, based on the overly positive tone of this Linked-in posts. I suspect someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes... even though the !vote talley is (currently) close right now, this is one close where the admin will really need to weigh the actual arguments, and info coming to light, as opposed to numbers and (apparently) misplaced iar compassion. (imo) - w o lf  03:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable per WP:GNG and as a CBE per WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. The question I'm asking myself is this: "If the last sentence in the article merely stated he'd resigned (as desired by the SPAs, but reverted), how likely is it this AfD would have been put forward? Rupples (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. While writing the above comment the article has been significantly expanded by User:Serial Number 54129 and the "misdemeanour" (my word) given a lot less weight. Contributors may wish to reassess their !votes in the light of this. Rupples (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep. First, I want to link to Articles for deletion/Indira Raman, which resulted in a "do the right thing" consensus to delete, just days ago, and which deals with somewhat similar circumstances. In my opinion, we should simply delete the "subsequent career" section of the page (the part about the relationship thing), in its entirety, on WP:BLP grounds. The rest of the page seems OK to me, and here we have someone who unambiguously meets WP:GNG. I say this because I believe that we should set limits on what page subjects can dictate to us about content. We should make absolutely sure that the page is BLP-compliant, and remove material that may be trivial if it doesn't reflect well. But when someone definitely meets BLP, to the point of being at least slightly outside the limits of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, we should still report encyclopedic and BLP-compliant information about that person, as opposed to deletion as a form of virtue signaling. By they way, that other AfD I linked to concerned someone who clearly passed WP:PROF, but who actually failed GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I made this edit: . In my opinion, the removal of the material that I made in that edit pretty much eliminates the rationale that the page should be deleted because it paints an unpleasant picture of the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That edit has been reverted, which weakens my keep opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, the edit you made removed both the context of and responses to the allegation while leaving the allegation itself. How the he'll is that in lime with BLP? Your edit gave undue weight to the attack aspect and removed sourced material. What gives? What have I misunderstood  Serial  23:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no need to shout. I felt that it was in "lime" (sic) with BLP to reduce the amount of weight given to the incident, by greatly shortening the passage to a brief summary followed by Bell's denial (which I left). I was motivated in part by the comments in the nomination on this AfD page. Shortly after I made the edit, it was reverted. And I haven't argued with the revert. I'm quite calm about it, and don't feel that strongly about it, however else other editors might feel. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A) I didn't shout. B) I don't criticise typos; they rarely matter out of article space. C) You quote the nomination. He says, "...several leading newspapers have acknowledged and acted on." These two articles were presumably what he was referring to. So it's in lime (sic'kening!) with what the nom actually wants to keep the material in, surely? FTR, as far as feeling strongly goes, neither of us have bludgeoned the process as others have, so , and all that!  Serial  19:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to note that we now have gotten consensus (I think) for a shorter version that omits the scandal entirely. If that doesn't get reverted, I feel that it removes all concerns about unfavorable material on the page, and that would make me a stronger keep. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Since when do we remove unfavourable material becuase of "concerns"? If the subject is notable, and sourcing is available, they get an article. Any notable and sourced content related to the subject should be included in said article, regardless if an WP-user, or the BLP subject themseleves, likes it or not. The creation and retention of these articles needs to be done without passion or prejudice, and according to the policies & guidelines of this project. Some people should really re-think their !votes and their comments here. (imo) - w o lf  05:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish, are you saying there’s now a consensus to eliminate all mention of General Bell’s getting cashiered and the reasons for it? I don’t see it.
 * I believe any article about this person should include this information, whether the General likes it or not. Furthermore, the fact that he’s used SPAs and a disingenuous appeal for pity to manipulate Wikipedia makes me implacably opposed to editing to make the subject look better. We report what’s properly referenced, period.
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll point you to the talk page for the article. There is an active discussion, and I said that I hope that there is a consensus that will hold. The place to discuss it is at the talk page. For what it's worth, I will strongly oppose the argument that you are making here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 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..