Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Ohr

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Ohr

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

I think the article should either be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT or merged into Nunes memo (or some other article). Also, it's a possible WP:BLP problems by giving undue weight to debunked passages of the Nunes memo and other primary sources. ^Falling_Gravity 04:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator evidently misses the point of ONEEVENT. The role of this person will be in the history books for generations. Editing out info because you don't like something is the wrong approach. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, what is this person's role? Having some sort of "contact" with Christopher Steele while working at the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force? That doesn't seem significant enough to be recorded in future history books. Also, the right approach is editing out false information, which is what I've been trying to do. ^Falling_Gravity 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bruce Ohr is a key player in one of the most significant events in United States political history.Phmoreno (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- ONEEVENT makes exceptions for events that are "highly significant". Like it or not, this was a big event that Ohr had a important role in. And the Nunes memo hasn't been "debunked". Even if the FBI had disclosed the source of the dossier, it would still not change the fact that it was the basis for the FISA warrant.--Rusf10 (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certain parts of the Nunes memo have been debunked, which the article previously regurgitated as the gospel truth. Whether or not the dossier was used in the FISA warrant is irrelevant to this article, especially considering that Ohr was not involved in the FISA process. ^Falling_Gravity 16:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of the Nunes memo, that the FISA warrant was largely based on the Steele dossier, has been debunked quite firmly. It was only partially based on it, and in fact Carter Page had already been the subject of a FISA warrant before, and Republicans re-authorised renewals three more times. The dossier only reinforced information the FBI already had from other sources, and the fact that Ohr drank coffee with Steele is of no known significant consequence, except in some non-evidence based fever dream right-wing conspiracy theories from Hannity, repeated by Trump and Co. That the article depends on Fox as a source, and largely uses the debunked Nunes memo as a source, are two things that need to be fixed. We must use more reliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not start another one of these "Fox News isn't a reliable source" debates. The last time the issue was raised, the consensus was that it is an RS. What has the Nunes memo been debunked by? The democrat memo? And we all know who the "republicans" who reauthorized the renewals were, so why not name them? Comey and Rosenstein. However, the Bruce Ohr article doesn't get too in detail about the memo and simply states " Steele dossier was part of the basis for the FISA warrant". I think that already neutral wording sine you yourself said it was "partially based on it". And to FallingGravity , I don't think anyone said that Ohr was actually involved with the FISA warrant itself, so that's a strawman. What is relevant to the article is his involvement with Steele and his wife's involvement with Fusion GPS.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't enough any details on his involvement with Steele and his wife's involvement with Fusion GPS to support your claim that they're "highly significant" to the dossier or the Russia investigation. ^Falling_Gravity 07:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established. Ohr and his role are an integral part of this historical event. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:19, 31 May 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.