Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Ohr (2nd nomination)

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 snow keep. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Ohr

[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)

Doesn't appear to be a notable individual outside one in-the-news event; WP:BLP1E would seem to dictate that any mention belongs in the article about the event, because there isn't enough to write an actual biography here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To expand upon this - all reliable sources cited in the article discuss Ohr in the context of his apparent involvement in the investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russian intelligence. The entire article, as constituted, discussed Ohr's involvement in this event. That is a textbook WP:COATRACK, and a textbook example of why we avoid writing biographies about marginally-notable people involved in larger events. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person and his wife have been attacked repeatedly by Donald Trump and today the White House announced that they are considering removing his security clearance which would end his career. Just today, he has been the subject of major articles in the New York Times and The Federalist. Ohr has also been criticized by prominent Republican congressmen including Devin Nunes, Darryl Issa and Trey Gowdy. I believe that the Russian attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the subsequent investigation are far more than a "single event", and that Wikipedia ought to have verifiable and neutral articles about people involved in this who have been the subject of ongoing coverage by reliable sources for an extended period of time. That includes Bruce Ohr. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Federalist is not a reliable source; it's a partisan house organ. The New York Times article discusses Ohr exclusively in the context of the event. There are not the foundations of a "biography" here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you that this lengthy saga is "one event" and I think the fact that coverage of Bruce Ohr has been ongoing for months demonstrates that this goes way beyond "one event". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the available reliable sources, what can be said about Ohr which isn't related to his involvement in this single event? If we can't find any, this shouldn't be a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy to include biographical information about his marriage to Nellie Ohr, since there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- More than six months have passed since this article was created and Ohr is still getting coverage. Here are some very recent examples: Little-Known Justice Dept. Official Makes Trump’s Security Clearance List (NY Times) (realize how they spin him as "little-known", don't think that's still the case when you have written several stories on him), Washington Times, Newsweek, Fox News (and all those in the past week or so). WP:BLP1E does not apply when the person is involved with a significant event and coverage is persistent. The biography can expanded, there's plenty of sources available. --Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be expanded? What material about Ohr which isn't related to his involvement in this event can be added? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to expand if you didn't keep deleting sourced content.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could the nominator (NorthBySouthBaranof) please explain why he thinks the keep arguments made in the previous AFD for this article just a few months ago are invalid? The consensus there was clearly that BLP1E does not apply to Ohr and that, therefore, he is notable, in line with Cullen's argument above. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That AFD decision had very few !voters, several of whom have edited this biography in an apparent effort to grind a political ax; one of them believes that the right-wing scandal sheet Gateway Pundit is an acceptable source. I saw a note on this at the BLPN, and this needs broader attention. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry NBSB, I'm with Cullen328 here. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a case for WP:BLP1E. Notability is clear based on extensive and continuous coverage and reliable sources as illustrated by Cullen328 and as sourced in the Wiki article. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Meets notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep This morning's Washington Post explains why: Who is Bruce Ohr and why does Trump keep tweeting about him?, and as per arguments cogently made at previous AfD. User:NorthBySouthBaranof, When bringing any article back to AfD after it has been kept, but especially one that was kept just a few weeks ago, it is a good idea to give a policy-based justification for bringing it back to AfD so quickly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's something particularly incongruous about invoking BLP1E (which doesn't "dictate" anything) after another event brings renewed attention to a person. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't have time to fix this, and it should not stay up with only a Fox News reference, so unless someone else gets it in shape pretty quick I would say "Delete."Rose bartram (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep As demonstrated above, the subject has received sustained significant coverage. The arguments from the previous AfD still hold, and there appears to be no new reason to warrant this sequel deletion nom. Davey2116 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, not only is there no new reason for this sequel deletion nom, Ohr has received even more coverage very recently. The article should be expanded and improved, not deleted. Davey2116 (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The President of the United States says he will revoke the security clearance of this person, a current Department of Justice career official, not because of any specific wrongdoing but because of his involvement in the early stages of a counterintelligence and criminal investigation of the President's campaign. Historians will be studying events like these for generations. Pigu (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has received widespread media coverage. An important part of an important event. JS (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be notable and has received widespread media coverage. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Does meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO and does not meet WP:BLP1E. Has just been nominated and was kept in WP community consensus. Since then there was more coverage so even less reason to delete! Please nominate articles wisely. gidonb (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof, I think you should withdraw this so we can get on with it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep it, I don't care anymore. I'm wasting my time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2018 (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.