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 keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keir Giles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't reach notability. Only claimed to have reach notability recently because of authoring a controversial article on a current event. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been present since 2014, indicating that Giles was notable even before the controversial article. 2603:7000:8000:FD9F:2576:AB52:137:2361 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The longevity of the article doesn’t mean anything though? We don’t have a rule that if it’s been here for a long time it’s notable. If anything it increases the risk of citogenesis. NM 18:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that he is a director of research at a major defence firm, he's a public figure, and that he publishes articles in some very popular newspapers. Explain how he doesn't meet the notability guidelines? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easy-peasy BLP1E. NM 17:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete this. This page has existed for almost a decade, so I find it very ironic how it suddenly gets accused of lacking notability almost immediately after the subject of the page becomes notable for their published work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk • contribs)

I'm not casting a vote at present, but I want to point out that this argument is bunk. There's no irony here, just currently heightened attention. As noted above, how long the article has been here doesn't suggest anything about the subject's actual notability. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 08:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:JOURNALIST/WP:NAUTHOR because he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers (he is a commentator widely cited by journalists). For example, BBC describes him as "probably Britain's leading watcher of Russian military matters". His book "Russia's War on Everybody" has won some critical attention (review 1, review 2).—Alalch E. 21:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Keep. Google Scholar [1] gives top hits 254,248,127,124,102 (all single authored). Ebsco search gives multiple book reviews of different books, probably sufficient to meet AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons listed above. The article is well-sourced and its subject is certainly notable. -2003:CA:8707:CA7:A80F:84D7:67CA:E63C (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Clearly notable. Not BLP1E in the slightest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2023 (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.