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 provisional keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Given that the editors, other than the SPA, who initially voted delete have changed to keep or provisional keep, I am withdrawing this nomination. I will take this to the BLP noticeboard, however, as there are a number of edits in the edit history that likely will require over sighting. Safiel (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Shortt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I have courtesy blanked the page pending resolution of this AfD. Highly negative BLP that has existed since February 2009. Not an outright attack nor an unsourced negative BLP, so CSD G10 doesn't apply. However, this is still extremely problematic and I recommend deletion in the strongest possible terms, given the non notability of the subject and the highly negative tone of the article. Safiel (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is counter-intuitive to blank an article that is under AfD debate. How can we look at the merits (yes I know look at earlier versions).Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a rare situation, normally AfD's shouldn't be blanked, but given the negativity of this article, I thought it prudent to do so. People can always check the edit history of the article to evaluate it for themselves. Safiel (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well the 2 weeks that the AfD would take pales in the time its already been up so ....I think blanking was not necessary. My vote below.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the article should go back up, for the nonce; highly irregular to delete an old article during AFD. Furthermore, solid sources, like the Times of London, exist, and someone may want to rewrite and source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored the article. It is sourced and not as negative as many other articles I have seen. No reason to blank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article history shows it was categorically created in 2009 as an attack page by an individual associated with a fraud-shaming site, and though sourcing has been added, none if is particularly good quality. The vast majority of the article's text appears to be disparaging of the subject, both expressed an implied (for example listing a excessively large number of suspect aliases heavy implies the subject is a shifty person). This is not what Wikipedia is for; we're not a pillory. There are other sites for that. Furthermore, this is a biography of a living person that, for all evidence I can see, is not notable in any way. He published a few minor books and teaches martial arts, neither of which have been at a level that would constitute notability. I had never heard of the subject and I only became aware of this article because I was doing a round-up of military imposters, and discovered many inappropriate articles that were created on Wikipedia by shaming sites, all of which have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 07:52, May 24, 2016‎

• Comment Had the article been caught immediately after its creation, it could and should have been deleted as an attack page. However, it was subsequently sourced and subsequent editors have made good faith (though misguided) efforts to save what should have been deleted. Safiel (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsupported claims do not contribute to notability and (the attack nature aside) the claims of the subject are shown to be questionable. Trimming everything down we have authorship of a few books and teaching martial arts. He does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not sure I understand this discussion. I searched his name and came up with "Irish chieftain at centre of probe into internet threats" [1] a 1999 article from the Sunday Times. A remarkable story. The blanked article is sourced to this article: [2] among others. Here's an excerpt from a recent article "Shortt’s exposure in 2009 created a storm when it emerged he was allowed access to the highly sensitive government building to advise on Cabinet Office security." [3]. Sounds like a notable scam artist. We have articles on scam artists. What's the argument just paring this one down and Keeping it?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sun and the Daily Mail are both tabloids, which according to notability rules, is not sufficient to warrant having his own article (See WP:DOGBITESMAN and WP:SENSATION), especially someone who has not been convicted of a crime by a court of law. If other articles are based on similar sources, they also should be deleted. I've already had three other such "con artists" deleted.Legitimus (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I truly have doubts about what is going on here. Aside from the fact that that I hesitate to dismiss the Sun and Daily Mail so cavalierly, it does not seem legitimate to mention 2 of the 3 papers I referenced, and omit the long, detailed story in the Sunday Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I just get a login page when I click the Sunday Times link, so I have no way to verify it.Legitimus (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that paywall protected sources (including newspapers) are valid. You can't dismiss them because they are behind a paywall.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, Legitimus, I just realized that you've been editing since 2007 and above you claim to have been involved in a series of AFDs. I am truly surprised to hear that you were unaware that newspaper articles behind paywalls are valid sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Now it is you that I should be suspicious of. I said I couldn't verify it when asked why I didn't comment on it. I never said that it must be dismissed. I could just as easily say you are part of ARRSE and trying to pursue their agenda by keeping this article up, considering the straw-manning and ad hominem arguments you just resorted to, tactics favored by bullies and people who know they don't have a good position in an argument.Legitimus (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Embedding the text of the Sunday Times article here, copied from Proquest: " THE chief herald of Ireland has asked the gardai to investigate threats posted on the internet against his office and staff. The threats followed Brendan O'Donoghue's decision to strip an Irish chieftain, the MacCarthy Mor, of his title.

The Royal Galloglas, claiming to be "the duly sworn bodyguard" of the deposed chieftain (Terence McCarthy), has threatened to use all its resources "to investigate both the backgrounds and motives of the (Genealogical) Office and individuals involved in this matter, as is our sworn oath to protect and serve the true MacCarthy Mor". The group, in a statement posted on the internet from its "headquarters" in Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, said its G2 branch had begun an investigation. G2 is the code usually given to the intelligence divisions of armies and police forces. The statement was signed by James Shortt, describing himself as the colonel commandant of the guard. O'Donoghue said: "I have brought this to the notice of the gardai. When you have a group like this using militaristic terms and investigating the staff of the office, I thought that the gardai should be made aware. It is up to the police to assess the degree of risk." Shortt is the director-general of the International Bodyguard Association, and claims to have trained Nato forces in combat skills, and the American army and air force in anti-terrorist techniques. A former friar, Shortt says he fought the Taliban in 1992 on behalf of the Afghan defence ministry and has worked in eastern Europe and Russia training government bodyguards. In 1995 he acquired the title Baron of Castleshort. The Sunday Times has established that for the past two months Shortt has being renting Borrmount Manor, a large old house in Enniscorthy and the address posted on the internet as the headquarters of the guard. Shortt said yesterday that there was nothing sinister in his guard's investigation and he was not threatening officials in the herald's office. "I am not the sort of person who goes around threatening people. Our investigation is continuing and the results will be posted on the internet," he said. The Royal Galloglas guards, who marched in this year's St Patrick's Day parade in New York, have a uniform of rust kilts, grey military shirts and black berets. One member carried an axe. The guard, supposedly descended from medieval Gaelic warriors, are part of an elaborate entourage the MacCarthy Mor, now known simply as Terence McCarthy, has built worldwide since his recognition as a chief. McCarthy even created his own order of chivalry, called the Niadh Nask, whose members include two former taoisigh. Supporters of McCarthy, 42, a Belfast historian of humble origins, have refused to accept O'Donoghue's decision to withdraw the courtesy recognition of MacCarthy Mor given by the Genealogical Office in 1992. The unprecedented decision followed a two-year investigation by government genealogists after a rival came forward to claim the title. Essentially admitting that McCarthy managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the Genealogical Office, O'Donoghue has also invalidated a 1979 decision to ratify and confirm arms to McCarthy and has decided that a pedigree registered to him in 1980 lacks genealogical integrity. In a statement issued last week outlining the reasons for his decision, the chief herald said genealogical information McCarthy submitted to his office was contradictory, incomplete and misleading. He concluded: "It appears that reliance was placed to an excessive degree on uncorroborated statements and uncertified copies, transcriptions, or summaries of documents, the originals of which were not produced or were said to have been destroyed by fire, flood or explosion." Since 1944 the Genealogical Office has given courtesy recognition to about 20 senior descendants of the last inaugurated Gaelic chieftains. A number of applications for recognition are outstanding, which O'Donoghue says will now be looked at extra carefully. He said: "It may be there is a case to say that the entire system of recognition does not serve a useful purpose. There is a case for reviewing the system." McCarthy is understood to have retired to Morocco. In a statement on the internet he said: "I see no reason now to abdicate, and indeed believe that would be an act of cowardice ... For the present I will retire from public life, not from embarrassment, but because two years of constant attack have undermined my health to such an extent that my doctor advises complete rest." He may yet face legal challenges from dozens of disgruntled Irish- Americans to whom he sold and granted titles over the past decade. One said: "I personally raised more than $lm for McCarthy's organisations, in the name of correcting the injustices of centuries on the Irish nobility." E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject of this article has been trying unsuccessfully to have it removed since 2009. It appears the creators of the article have been protecting it from deletion. As you say, he is not of the level of fame or importance that rates a biography. Take it down and all of the others that the group that made it, put up. They seem to think this is their personal webpage to attack people they do not like. They have a website of their own for that. Wikipedia is not for this sort of thing. Attack pages have nothing to do with the purpose of this siteSterlingSpots (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC).— [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Previous comment fails to address the reliable sources that do exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What I fail to understand is why a headline-making scam artist, one who, according to the Times of London, bilked people out of a great deal of money, and appears to have escaped lawsuits by absconding to Morocco, why he should be able to expunge his Wikipedia page? This was not a one-off, it appears to have been a career length scam.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that while Shortt now asks for privacy, he sought publicity back when he was running the scam [[4]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• sources: Sydney Morning Herald [5]; The Australian on Shortt's "International Law Enforcement Training Agency" [6] and here: [7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Other puzzled editors can seek enlightenment at Terence Francis MacCarthy, the scam artist Shortt worked for/with.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am changing my vote - his notoeriety has been covered by main stream press. The Times article is only one of several with the coverage beyond passing. He may not be notable as author or martial artist (as per my original vote) but he has made an impact. The article does need work but he is a notable scam artist.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That, I accept, and would be willing to change my vote as well, if someone would be willing to improve the article with those sources.Legitimus (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Query Now that an SPA has weigned in, and SPA with only a handful of previous edits, one on the talk page of User:Legitimus, I wonder whether we should revisit the entire group of articles Legitimus boasts of "rounding-up" and deleting in his comment above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2016 (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.