Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Doherty

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi; no consensus on Sean Smith (diplomat). The two guidelines which have been most cited in relation to this discussion are WP:MEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. WP:MEMORIAL says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." This doesn't seem to be of all that much relevance here, as the debate has centred around whether the subjects pass our notability guidelines.

Of the notability guidelines that apply here, WP:ONEEVENT is the most important, and indeed I thought its interpretation by the participants was the key to judging consensus. Its wording is fairly vague: "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Some editors have interpreted this as pointing to deletion of all three articles, arguing that they have no notability outside the Consulate attack; some editors have interpreted it as pointing to keeping all three articles, as the press published general biographical details of the subjects following the attack. As the guideline doesn't give any specific guidance on which of these interpretations is to be preferred, I have treated both of these interpretations as valid.

There were other arguments put forward to keep the articles based on the subjects' achievements, such as Doherty's book and Woods's Bronze Star. However, editors generally did not that that these contributed to the subjects' notability under our guidelines.

With the exception of one "keep all" !vote, all the arguments were at least partially based on the notability guidelines. Because of the high percentage of valid arguments, and the room for interpretation in WP:ONEEVENT, I looked more closely at the numbers involved to find the most appropriate close. From my analysis of the !votes, I get the following:

  • Keep all: 8
  • Keep Smith, but not others: 4
  • Merge/redirect all: 5
  • Delete/merge/redirect all: 2
  • Delete all: 6

I interpret these numbers to mean that there is a rough consensus that Doherty and Woods aren't notable, but that they shouldn't be deleted outright. Hence merge. In Smith's case, enough editors thought his prominence online before the attack was enough to keep the article that the numbers are a lot more even. Hence I am closing Smith's article as no consensus, defaulting to keep. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Doherty

[edit]
Glen Doherty (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)

Also nominating:

Sean Smith (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tyrone S. Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sad, but Wikipedia is not a memorial and these individuals are notable for nothing else than for being killed. They didn't hold senior positions and are intrinsically no more notable than anyone else who's died. Yes, they've received a lot of coverage, but that's normal these days for anyone killed in a notable event and doesn't mean they're notable themselves. Smith being well-known on online games doesn't really cut it. He's just a bloke who played a lot of computer games. That's not exactly unusual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doherty and Woods were both Navy Seals. Doherty coauthored a book. Woods received a bronze star. Ryan Vesey 20:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a Navy Seal (or a member of any other special forces unit) is not sufficient for notability. Even sole-authoring a book is not sufficient for notability unless that book is exceptionally well-known. Receiving a Bronze Star (or its equivalent in any other country) is not sufficient for notability. The fact he did all three makes him no more notable. This has all been held to be the case many times in previous AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Necro, so according to your standards only generals and admirals and any royalty deserve articles on WP. You seem to forget that WP:NOTPAPER and that WP is not an enclave for "who's who" for the so-called elite of humanity but that sudden, dramatic and critical events can and do and will bring to the public eye personalities who meet all of WP's heretofore standards of WP:NOTABILITY. Methinks you are arbitrarily raising the bar and it sets a bad precedent. Every minor cartoon character gets a mention on WP with no sweat, and these are more significant and notable especially given the fact it's part of a current serious conflict in Libya. Another point is that these guys were the first known American casualties in the conflict to overthrow Gadafi. IZAK (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What absolute drivel. Where have I said that "only generals and admirals and any royalty deserve articles on WP"? I have myself written many, many biographical articles on people below that level. I haven't raised any bar - I'm just stating what Wikipedia has already established about notability (i.e. that being a special forces operative, winning the Bronze Star or authoring a non-notable book does not make one notable). The "first known American casualties in the conflict to overthrow Gadafi"? Come again? Are you not aware that Gadaffi has already been overthrown? This had nothing whatsoever to do with the overthrow of Gadaffi. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No branch of the armed forces, whether special forces, catering corps, or vehicle-maintenance technicians, are more notable than any others, according to our guidelines. Bronze Stars are not notable; we routinely delete holders of the Silver Star because only MoH winners are intrinsicly deemed notable. Doherty's worthiness in terms of writing a book does not really pass WP:AUTHOR. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Altairisfar (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Yes, they were killed a few weeks ago in that consulate attack, but nothing here makes these individuals notable, let alone stand out with regards to the attacks. Nothing else can be mentioned aside from their cursory personal and professional backgrounds. As Buckshot06 mentioned above, being a Navy SEAL does not confer notability, and the Bronze Star medal is a commonplace medal, especially in the field. Moreover, being a gaming mod doesn't to that, either. --MuZemike 23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, no notability outside of their deaths. EricSerge (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per ONEEVENT. Mr. Vesey assertions aside, no part of Wikipedia notability criteria allows for the compilation of non-notable facts to somehow froth up a notable whole. Being a Navy SEAL is not notable. Writing a book is not notable. Tens of thousands of soldiers have won Bronze Stars; also not notable. 0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sean Smith (diplomat). WP:ONEEVENT does not apply, specifically "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.". Multiple sources are given that refer to him outside the context of a single event, and give reference to his prominence in the online community. Additionally, he doesn't meet the definition of a low profile individual as it is defined at Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual. Membership of the Council of Stellar Management and a prominent role in the Somethingawful forums are both well documented, and response of both communties to his death lends evidence to his notability. This is exactly the sort of article you'd expect to read on an encyclopedia, and the article has already been viewed 59,000 times. Additionally, the Doherty should be kept as well. The combination of being a Bronze Star recipient, authoring a book, and dying in the manner in which he did combines to confer notability. Deleting a well-sourced, valid, and widely reported article on the subject of a major event because of bureaucracy is stupid. Falcon8765 (TALK) 06:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody has suggested we should delete the article on the event! Simply that we should delete articles on individual victims. Are the men who died in this event any more significant than the many thousands who died in the Battle of the Somme, for instance? No, they're not. Should every one of the latter have articles? Clearly, no they shouldn't. So why should these three? They died, that's all. The event in which they died is notable, but they're no more notable individually than anybody else who's died. Redirects to the main article are fine, but not articles on all three individual victims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err ... that he doesn't meet the definition of a "low profile individual" as set forth in an unofficial essay that hasn't come close to wide currency? Not what I'd call a valid ground to keep. As far as the stupidity of deleting articles goes, if you would like to attempt to swing consensus to overturn ONEEVENT, the proper place to do so is on ONEEVENT's talk page. This is not "bureaucracy," but adherence to our well-founded and consensus-approved notability criteria, however much you believe the subject is important. Ravenswing 19:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sean Smith (diplomat), as per Falcon8765 above: WP:ONEEVENT does not apply in his case. -- The Anome (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Falcon. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues! 10:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge/Redirect - Per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Sources have covered more than just his death, but it's pretty clear that none of the coverage would have occurred had he not died. I don't mean to sound cold, I just mean it's not like there was a USA Today article lined up for him on that day otherwise, for example. Perhaps he deserves a mention in the event article or something, but not his own. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. Although the subjects meet WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO, the subjects also fail all but #5 in WP:SOLDIER, and also fall under WP:BLP1E & WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Therefore, the content can be summarized, and a redirect to an appropriate section in the target article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All because there is incredible interest in this episode and in the lives lost. These articles are all well-researched and to the point and meet all the criteria of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTABLE, WP:BIO. Each of these killed individuals were personalities in their own right, that worked undercover, but have now been thrust into the intense scrutiny of the media and online discussions, particularly since the circumstances surrounding their deaths are a source of debate and controversy. See also the template {{2012 diplomatic missions attacks}} that lays out the importance of all the parts in understanding the "whole" of this complex picture, including all four Americans killed in the attack and the roles they played while in Libya. These were not "doormen" -- they were extraordinarily skilled and highly experienced fighting professionals. IZAK (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And soldiers killed in combat aren't? Either you're saying we should have an article on every one of them, which is clearly impossible and undesirable, or you're saying these people are a special case. Why? What makes them a special case? What makes them notable people as opposed to simple victims of a notable event? Being former Navy SEALs perhaps? Are all Navy SEALs worthy of articles? Are all members of special forces worldwide worthy of articles? Or is it just American special forces? Or is it just Navy SEALs because they're somehow "special"? At the end of the day these were just people doing their jobs who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a small number of people are killed in a shocking event they can get individual attention that casualties in an ongoing conflict that kills thousands cannot receive. Consider Barbara Robbins, the first American woman killed in the Vietnam War (in a terrorist attack). Certainly the attention that Sean Smith has received from gamers has made him a sort of symbol. GabrielF (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that these are WP:N for the simple reason that the media is focusing on them strongly, the four dead Americans, killed in a big attack, and their names as individuals is constantly focused on by the media, as each day brings more WP:RS about them. This is not the case when anonymous fighting men die or when tens of thousands of soldiers die, no one knows their names, but in this case, their names are not only known but are being elevated to a higher level of attention with each passing day as the attack is investigated. In the case of Paul Revere, he was just a panicked horseman who deserved no special attention but he became famous and noteworthy because of the subsequent attention that was focused on him. There are many cases like that in military history where specific individuals are elevated above the rest. The world does that and in this case the media is ensuring that this continues with these four killed men, and no one can suppress and push aside the constant flow of WP:V WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. Do a Google search on any British or American serviceman killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and you will find reams of stuff on each and every one of them. That's what happens in the modern information age. It doesn't make them notable and it doesn't make these men notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give some names of these other servicemen killed, so we can compare the amount of coverage on them? I don't think that just one of the many servicemen who died in normal combat would be as notable (and have as many sources) as this attack, which is getting a great deal of media attention. Sean Smith was not just a normal person killed; he had a great deal of influence online. And consider that the virtual reaction to his death is something that is very unique and now well documented with secondary sources. This kind of massive virtual mourning doesn't happen with any normal serviceman who gets killed. It isn't the fact that he got killed in a conflict that makes him notable, but it's this unprecedented virtual reaction by an online gaming community. Merlinsorca 22:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast; I can't put it any better than they did. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sean Smith (diplomat), I agree with Falcon8765 in this case. --Shadak (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. --Nouniquenames 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to a 'Victims' section on U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. No evidence of independent notability. GiantSnowman 07:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Falcon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sergecross73. A wild Rattata (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sean Smith (diplomat) due to the unique reaction from online communities concerning his death. I agree with Falcon. Merlinsorca 23:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What unique reaction exactly, and how does that help this article meet the WP:GNG exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, his death received a great deal of attention (and was mourned) in the virtual world, as opposed to the real world, which I think is unusual. If a normal guy who played computer games were to die in real life, he wouldn't get the same kind of reaction from online communities that Sean Smith did. The fact that the players (and even the game developers) made such a big deal about his death should make it a case that's worth noting. As for WP:GNG, he is definitely notable in that sense as there are a great deal of reliable secondary sources that document him. Merlinsorca 00:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Falcon and Izak. Meets WP:GNG and is well referenced and organized. --Jethro B 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi per WP:BLP1E Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sean Smith; not sure about the other two. Smith appears to have been a 'name' in the gaming world, even before this incident, so he passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge to main article Per comments above, I don't see that they have any genuine notability distinct from this one event. Yes there's a lot of coverage but that's because of the attack and their deaths; yes, one of them co-wrote a book and one of them was a known online gamer, but would we have pages on them in respect of those things if they had not died? All sorts of people are killed in notable incidents, and it is then reported that they had done things in their lives and had respect in certain communities, real or web-based. In the absence of any of them becoming genuinely symbolic or iconic in some enduring way as a result of their deaths, I can't see they're notable in their own right. We're shading a bit to close to looking at this as some form of memorial opportunity - there's other places for that, not here. N-HH talk/edits 10:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. Bennylin (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - WP:ONEEVENT concerns reliable sources covering the person only in the context of a single event. Here, the event promoted reliable sources to write about their lives, not only their placement in the event, but outside the event - from birth though death in significant detail. WP:ONEEVENT does not apply and arguments asserting it does are focusing on the motivation behind reliable sources reason for writing what they wrote, which is not part of WP:ONEEVENT. While it may be true that none of the coverage would have occurred had they not died the way they did, we all agree that the coverage did occur and that is where Wikipedia steps in to determine whether there is enough of such coverage for a stand alone article on the topic. Also, if the topics satify Wikipedia's notability requirements, then WP:NOTMEMORIAL indicate that the topic satisfies WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As for whether these three are more significant than other who died, that is a WP:WAX argument. As for the topics having to meet some threshold of importance or significance, that was decided by the editors of the reliable sources in favor of the topics being important when the editors chose to publish the information on the topics in their reliable source. While being a Navy SEAL, writing a book, or earning a Bronze Star may not make the people stand out, the reliable sources writing about their lives show how important and significant these topics are despite the lack of position of or status reached by the people behind these biographical topics. The topics meet WP:GNG. Keep all. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Glen_Doherty&oldid=1144977627"