Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Ryan (interrogator)


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  10:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Joe Ryan (interrogator)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article's history is a mess. It was created when he and his journal were in the news. Since then, there has been no coverage because he's a standard civilian contractor and this fails BLP1E. As an alternative to deletion I considered CACI, but likely to be BLP issues and he's not mentioned there, so bringing it here for a larger discussion. StarM 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.       StarM 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.       StarM 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.       StarM 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.       StarM 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Pure WP:1E with no lasting notability. Mztourist (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete subject is not notable, lacks WP:SIGCOV. Could possibly redirect to Abu Gharib page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse), but at a brief glance, doesn't appear to meet notability there, either. Redoryxx (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not everyone who has a work published is notable. Basically at the time this got some news coverage, but there is no indication that in the long run his work has been viewed by academics as a notable contribution to our based knowledge. That may change, but for now we do not have the sourcing or analysis to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.