Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Strickland (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 delete. None of the "keep" !votes are policy-based, in contrast to the "delete" ones. Randykitty (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ben Strickland
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD

View log Stats )

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:Soldier. All I can find for WP:RS is a single Navy Times article discussing his whistle blowing activity and claims regarding retaliation. The remainder of the sources listed are either routine coverage of the ships he was on and just passing mentions of his name, no significant coverage. The article seems to just be a way to push the POV that he was wronged by the USCG. I don't know if he was or wasn't, but either way, the situation only garnered a single news story and an Amazon.com book that was self published (edit: by London Steverson). I thank him for his service in the USCG, but it's mostly routine service similar to thousands of other soldiers and sailors. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, the first deletion was for a football coach named Ben Strickland, there a number of hits on EBSCO for that Strickland, but not for this Ben Strickland. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete this WP:COATRACK. It is plausible that he was hard done by, but we're not the place to blaze the trail in Righting Great Wrongs. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Wiki references cited by Dual Freq do not support his argument for deletion. Dual Freq apparent obsession with Steverson on this Project Page as well as the adjacent Talk Page is an apparent red herring to distract from the subject of the article; Steverson is not the subject of this article nor even mentioned. Also to wit: "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."Panama Jones (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a good faith attempt to find sources. As I said in the nom, I found only the Navy Times article in EBSCO host using Ben Strickland Benjamin Stickland and Coast Guard. Most of the hits there are for the football coach. As for google, military corruption.com, Steverson's blog and a book he self-published. None of those meet the requirements of WP:RS. The other citations only exist because of the USCG cutter's notability mentioning routine personnel changes. I make no judgement of Stickland's claims, just his notability for inclusion per WP:GNG. It is nothing personal, not everyone needs or would want a wikipedia article. I didn't ask Ichbinalj to log in after 9 years to comment here and bring up Steverson. I have no WP:COI in this matter, I am not connected in any way to Strickland, Steverson or the Coast Guard. This is not the place to sell self-published books, promote blogs, search engine optimization or for advocacy. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur counter-arguement. I see no selling of any book in the encyclopedia, contrary to your unsubstantiated allegations to diminish the validity of this article which not only passed muster with other editors and was approved for publication prior to your #Wikihounding / "WP:STALK" of me as a contributer from article to article I have edited or written in the past many months; apparently this particular article is just your particular pet project of the week. You claim no COI, yet continually insert yourself with an (apparent) obsession, demanding citations above and beyond what is provided in other military biographies, yet which other editors provided. All these references from what I see name the subject of article which IMO adequately "verify" the biography you were demanding "proof" to substantiate what was previously accepted. And as the Wiki references which you cite that do not substantiate your allegation indicate (and contradict your argument that this subject is not notable), a single RS is not "evidence" of a lack of notability. Panama Jones (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Soldier is the guide used for military biographies, but Strickland meets none of those criteria. Other biographies have to follow the same citation guidelines as the rest of wikipedia, especially if it is a WP:BLP. No one is stalking you, others have raised these concerns as well. See Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive228 regarding an earlier version. It's pretty much textbook WP:Coatracking. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Others are not following me from page to page #Wikihounding like you are. Furthermore, the "others" you claim to speak for are not here proposing deletion, nor supporting your proposal. You do not speak for anyone but yourself, so please refrain from pretending to do so. An "earlier version" is also not the subject of discussion here, so your strawman argument is irrelevant. It is apparent that those who approved this article for publication acted in good faith and in accordance with existing Wiki policy. You have failed by preponderance of evidence to prove otherwise. In fact, the sources you cite, even contradict your arguments (whose goalposts seem to shift each time anything is raised which counters you). Panama Jones (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the recommendation to delete the Ben Strickland article because the reasons given are not accurate. The book "The Case of CDR Benjamin Strickland" was not self-published. The book was written by Judge L. Steverson, USALJ (Ret). In order to be self- published, it would have had to be written by Benjamin Strickland. That would seem to be intuitively obvious. Even assuming arguendo that it was self-published, that in no way detracts from the truth or accuracy of the facts contained therein. Books are written for posterity as well as profit. Also, there appears to be an inherent bias against Amazon.com books. Thousands of great books are available from Amazon.com General Petraeus' book is available on Amazon.com. Moreover, the Claims of Whistle blower Retaliation have been accepted for redress of grievance by several Governmental Boards and Agencies set up to screen cases and to grant relief. That would render moot any allegation that Ben Strickland is not a "Whistle blower". Neither quantity nor quality of main stream media notice or the lack thereof can nullify that fact. To allege otherwise evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of the Governmental Administrative Process. I do not perceive the "sour grapes" POV (point of view) as the dominant theme of the article. To get that perception, one would have to be predisposed to look along those lines. The Commander's service was, by no means, routine. Out of 35,000 people he was one of only two people with the unique set of skills to perform a particularly high level job that the Service needed. The overriding animus expressed for the Commander and driving this nomination for deletion appears to be a spillover from the disdain that is rampant in the USA today for our military and its members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichbinalj (talk • contribs) 02:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, self-published by London Steverson, still not a reliable source per-WP:RS. BTW, welcome back to wikipedia after 9 years. I see from your edit history you are very interested in London Steverson and uploaded a personal photo of him. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Commander Ben Strickland is the subject of a book, THE CASE OF CDR BENJAMIN STRICKLAND, Authored by L. Steverson USALJ, Retired (ISBN: 9781514682739) that goes into much more detail about the Whistleblower Retaliation taken against him. I served 26 of my 30 active duty years in the Coast Guard, retiring in 2001 as a Chief Warrant Officer 4. I have became friends with Ben and know him to be an honorable, highly decorated officer who I would have proudly served for had he been my Executive Officer or Commanding Officer. Ben took a report of sexual assault and watched as it was being prepared to be swept of the deck of the ship into the dumpster. Commander Strickland's actions, to follow the investigation through to the end. His actions should served as an exemplary example of leadership - like the movie TWELVE O'CLOCK HIGH, which is often shown as an example of leadership. Ben's devotion to follow the Core Values of the Coast Guard - which he has been accused of ignoring them - saw that eventually the accused assaulter was brought to justice for his actions.

The retaliation heaped on Commander Strickland - assigning him to a position in CGHQ that was a junior officer's position; canceling his orders as a Liaison Officer to the Navy in a position that he was only one of two officers qualified to fill, and his early retirement, was unjust and unwarranted. He should have received praise and recognition for his actions.

His page should remain so others can see just how contrite the "Good Old Boys" of Coast Guard Leadership can ruin someone's career.

CWO4 Tim Hecht, USCG Retired — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.57.46 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The book mentioned was self-published July 2015 using "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" according to the amazon page.--Dual Freq (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete-Does not meet WP:GNG most coverage is routine and not in depth. The Navy Times article is not enough to write an article and the book that was self-published by its author does not meet our WP:RS requirements. EricSerge (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: the book in question was self published by its author which is a common practice for books of this type and distributed and sold through Amazon. It is NOT self published by the person who is the subject of the book. The book is in circulation and is a reliable and accurate source of information regarding the acts of retaliation. It is a notable source of information about the subject person and does portray senior Coast Guard management up to and including the current Commandant as a team that encourages an atmosphere of intimidation and retaliation. As a whistleblower his story will be subjected to efforts to cover up the facts. Wikipedia should not fall victim to participating in the cover up of a fact based account of the events.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allwbs (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to wikipedia. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, I do not see anywhere in the article where the biographical information in the article is inaccurate or inconsistant with the references (some of which I provided at the request of the nominator). A single 'Navy Times' article thus far mentioning the whistleblowing angle/allegations/complaint is not all that surprising for a military WB case given the article also indicates there is a pending investigation and hearing with the Board for Correction of Military Records. The way the Ferris Doctrine has been consistently interpreted the past 50+ years, members of the armed forces are ineligible to petition the courts, even if they allege they were wronged by their superiors. Therefore any external media coverage of an ongoing administrative process isn't likely at this time. If the decision is not made to Keep, then admin should consider Merge with other cases/situations involving complaints of retaliation in the armed forces as this sort of information is notable based on the significant coverage and discussion of MST and MST retaliation the past many months (including Sen. Gillibrand's proposal for reforms which would address incidents of alleged retaliation against victims and witnesses such as this). I do not see the Amazon book mentioned in the article, but the discussion here and what appears to be on this talk page a clear attempt to belittle it leads me to believe there is something worth reading there. HawleyPatriot (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to wikipedia. The first line of the general notability criteria says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". Wikipedia requires reliable external media sources, especially in biographies of living person. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, expose the "truth" or blow the whistle. The news does that and then an article is created citing those sources. The book is no longer mentioned in the article because another editor removed is because it was self-published. Anyone in the world can self-publish or have a blog. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Appears then that this article should be marked by admin as a Keep as very much complies with that same above criteria then, especially considering an article was clearly created after a significant article in external media. Wikipedia is indeed a good source of information and I see nowhere where any of the information in this article is in any way inaccurate or falsified, again another reason to Keep. There is no value added to the encyclopedia by deleting information that accurately describes what is referenced. HawleyPatriot (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep the entire Wiki Article regarding Commander Ben Strickland. It is a powerful message of how "old school" good old boys club, behind the scenes, can conspire to ruin a previously acknowledged stellar Naval Officer's career; it needs to remain as a leadership message. A question for dualfreq - your argument for the "does not meet the..WP:GNG because the book by Steverson was self-published; but in checking the "qualifications for sources for the GNG I find this: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Would you please provide your cite against "self-published? I vote keep the article about CDR Strickland - from the minute CDR Strickland stepped up and did his job as the Executive Officer of a Coast Guard High Endurance Cutter (similar to a USN Warship, however the Coast Guard, the 5th Armed Forces of the USA isn't, but should be under the category of WP:SOLDIER.  One would question how an argument to exclude CDR Strickland from recognition under WP: SOLDIER since there isn't any criteria listed for the Coast Guard, America's Oldest Seagoing Military Service.  While not a component of the DoD it is a vital member to the US Armed Forces.  A former Navy Admiral, serving as the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, referred to the Coast Guard as the "Hardened Nucleus that other Services form around in time of Wars or National Emergencies."

CWO4 Tim Hecht, USCG Retired — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.167.238 (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for another similar comment. Your first comment is saved above. WP:Soldier applies to USCG and there are plenty of notable USCG personnel in wikipedia. Generally, O-6 and below are not automatically considered notable. The general notability guide mentions significant coverage in media. This is not the place for "breaking" the news or getting back at the "Good Old Boys." Prior significant coverage must exist. Anyone can self-publish or have a blog, that's why they are not usually considered reliable. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

KEEP: A previous post does not appear in this discussion and it may be due to my inexperience in participating in this type of discussion. Nevertheless, I am aware that the decision to delete or not to delete is not a matter of majority voting, but should be within the Wikipedia guidelines. As a print and web publisher, given the thousands of federal whistleblowers who step forward each year and the few entries on the page that lists whistleblowers, I am concerned that a discussion such as this one are responsible for keeping whistleblowers from posting. My immediate concern is the issue of whether or not a book published by a third party constitutes a "self published" source as Dual Freq as represented. While I have read the book and have seen documents confirming relevant content there is no indication from this discussion that Dual Freq has read the book. Furthermore, I would not consider a search of the web for confirming information to be a relevant method for a final determination as to whether or not the book and/or its author are a reliable source. In accordance with what I have read (so far) in Wikipedia's guidance, the author by virtue of his position as a retired Administrative Law Judge would be considered as a reliable source. Documentation of the nature that would confirm the facts of the book would not ordinarily be published online, but would be discoverable through a number of methods. From what I have personally seen, I am sufficiently convinced that the book is an accurate representation of fact. Therefore, deletion of the page based on Dual Freq's representation that it is self published and/or based on an "unreliable source" should be dismissed and Dual Freq's motives for requesting deletion based on any other representation should be questioned. – Allwbs (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Allwbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allwbs (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to wikipedia, your previous comment was saved above. It is not gone. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to Allwbs: You can comment here as often as you like, but you only get to "vote" once. You already said "keep' above. So I am striking the word "keep" on this and later posts. Your later posts could start with "comment" or some such thing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

DualFreq - I am trying to make this a sensible, polite, and civil discussion about your obsession to delete the Wiki page concerning Cdr Ben Strickland, USCG. I checked the WP: GNG for any restrictions regarding what you claim to be "self published" but you know, I could not find any references to self published documents; I will repost it here incase you missed it earlier; but it says this: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language". Perhaps in your narrow view self-published isn't what you consider reliable; but apparently Wikipedia doesn't exclude it. I do note that you chose to not answer my comment regarding the lack of anything that would exclude what you claim self-published.

DualFreq - I am a retired Chief Warrant Officer; for the sake of discussion - I searched Wikipedia in response to your "O-6 and below are not automatically considered notable" there are more then one or two "notable" CWOs. I think the whole point of Ben Strickland's Wiki Page is to show (maybe not to you - but others) that a Commissioned Officer, with nearly 20 years of exemplary service to the nation, can have his career - entire life - destroyed for taking the right fork in the road. Not knowing your personal history nor what your knowledge of the military is I can tell you that service in the Coast Guard is different then service in other services. CDR Strickland, before his "tarring and feathering by a network of "good old boys" was (and in my opinion still is) one of the best Coast Guard Commanders I've ever had the privilege of knowing; and with 26 years of active Coast Guard Duty I've met many. As someone else has mentioned, he was one of only two officers, of any rank, uniquely qualified to serve as a Liaison Officer at the Navy Fleet Level.  To be selected to this position one must be an exemplary example of his peers.  You may be very conversant in the idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia and its mechanics but your knowledge of the military especially the Coast Guard.

CDR Strickland's decision to follow the sexual assault charges to ensure that no coverup, no sweeping under the carpet of the investigation, took courage to follow through. Heroism and Valor isn't limited to the battlefield; if he knew in advance what was going to happen to his career and the affect on his family his courage to ensure the right thing was done - he would have done it. That is courage; he has been shunned by not only the command cadre of the Coast Guard but by some of his peers; and as such has been labeled a whistleblower - which in other arenas that would be a good thing - but in the military, especially considering the size of the Coast Guard Officer's Corps it is considered the professional kiss of death. What would you have done in his shoes; had it happened to you would you want the story to be told?

CWO4 Hecht — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.166.208 (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't write these or make them up: Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes, "Field grade officer (colonels) and their equivalents, as well as more junior officers, must usually demonstrate notability independent of their military rank." WP:SELFPUBLISH, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Also see Conflict of interest, "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships." It is not the purpose of wikipedia to get back at the "good old boys", blow the whistle or bring a cover up to light. The news media covers such things then wikipedia uses that significant coverage as a source. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

KEEP: The recommendation for deletion based on Strickland's military service [WP:Soldier] does not appear to be relevant. While Strickland was a member of the Coast Guard and therefore a uniformed service member, his inclusion is not due to the military service, but due to his being a "military" whistleblower. All whistleblowers are notable persons as indicated by Wikipedia's page listing of whistleblowers. Furthermore, Strickland's efforts to bring issues of retaliation against military members to the attention of Members of Congress and the ongoing attention being given to him in Congress warrants the information presented on his page. He has become a notable person in his own right. Allwbs (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Allwbs
 * Welcome to wikipedia, your previous 2 comments were saved above. Notability comes from significant news coverage. Little or no coverage, no notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia's criteria for an article here are clear and are spelled out at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. They require that the subject must have been written about in detail by multiple WP:independent WP:reliable sources. Those terms are carefully defined; they do not include blogs or self-published books, especially WP:POV books written to prove a point. (By the way, "self published" does not mean "published by the subject"; it means "published by the author", often through a "we will publish your book for you!" type process, rather than a regular, professionally edited publishing company.) The subject here does not meet those criteria. Apparently his claim of notability comes from his allegedly being demoted for whistleblowing, but the information in the article is sourced entirely to a single Navy Times article, which in turn seems to have Strickland itself as its sole source of information. This is neither independent or reliable. BTW the large influx of editors who have never edited here before, or not in years, makes it seem likely that there is offline WP:CANVASSING going on. Their arguments are passionate, but they do not appear to understand Wikipedia policy. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

DUALFREQ - who has made you the authority for including or excluding Wiki Pages? As far as I know someone other then CDR Strickland created his Wiki Page; but you seem to think that not only did he create the page but he also wrote and self published a book about it.

You have obviously not paid much attention to his page; he is a highly decorated Commander, Commanding Officer of one cutter and Executive Officer of one of the service's major cutters.

I read the general information about sources, you seem to be making some rules up as you go. There isn't anything that excludes the book authored by a retired U.S. Administrative Law Judge; yet you went after the judge and got his page removed. Now shortly after that you are trying to have CDR Strickland's page removed.

I have a feeling that you have a hidden agenda, that you are trying to continue with the way this issue was handled by the command structure of the service. From a career only standpoint CDR Strickland had an outstanding, stellar career. My comments regarding the "Good Old Boys" isn't an attempt to retaliate against them; but to educate readers that there is, in all services, a behind the scene group of classmates, similarly ranked officers who use their powers to do what was done.

Passionate? Sure, just as passionate as you are to try to have the page written about him removed.

I wonder if Wikipedia has a protocol for WP:CYBERBULLY because you sure do try to be a bully. How about answering some of the points that have been brought up; instead of posting WP THIS WP THAT. I also get the impression based on Wiki info about you that you think because this is my (and others) venture into the internal machinations that you, as a master editor, think you are better then I or others.

I've tried to not make this personal but you sir seem to have a hidden agenda regarding the page you want to boot.

Cwo4 Tim Hecht — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.166.208 (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * — 68.255.166.208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. see WP:NPA. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Due to his role as a whistleblower, rather than as a soldier.Ljgua124 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

KEEP: I reviewed the previously mentioned justification for deletion under WP:GNG, but do not find this to be an applicable justification for deletion. It seems that the earlier justification was based on a web search which only turned up one article. However, the Wikipedia guidance specifically states that the basis of the notability merely has to exist and be discoverable. I have personally seen the copies of the documentation that supports the acts of retaliation and Strickland's involvement with Members of Congress and their staffs. I think it would be inappropriate to publish this material online. This completes my review of the arguments for deletion and I do not find any supportable argument for deletion. I have not reviewed the article for its content, so there may be additional editorial changes to the content, but I cannot support the outright deletion of the article(s). At the same time, I think that Dual Freq had a legitimate basis for raising the issue of deletion. Whoever this person is, they have offered the opportunity for Wikipedia to review its publication guidance particularly with regard to whistleblowers. With more than 40-years of experience as a publisher, as a relative of the person who brought printing to the US, and as a pioneer in the transition from hot type, to photo-type, to online publishing; I have participated in significant changes to the publishing trade. Everyday, what we once considered as "traditional publishing" is changing with more and more "self-published" authors learning how to publish and print through Amazon or other distributors. Traditional publishers were those who had the financial ability to roll out reams of paper. That is no longer the case, and we are likely to see far more "books" being published as digital-printed, individual books as the norm. I am also aware of more than 6,000 whistleblowers most of whom have been gagged by the terms of their legally-binding, settlement agreements with the federal government so that their stories are never publicly disclosed. That does not diminish their credibility. The stories of these whistleblowers are exactly why there is the right to free speech and freedom of the press. I think Wikipedia may be the most appropriate place to publicly identify whistleblowers and their issues. This may require additional guidance for what may or may not be included on Wikipedia pages, but the priority should be to include these pages -- not delete them. Allwbs (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Allwbs.
 * Welcome to wikipedia. This is your 4th keep "vote". We can only deal with facts published by news media / WP:RS. WikiLeaks is a different website from Wikipedia. They publish "secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources." Wikipedia has strict requirements, especially in biographies of living persons. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

KEEP: The issue of "Blowing the Whistle" within the private sector; all levels of government; and especially the military is here to stay. Retribution; revenge for whistleblowing; had reached such a large segment of whistleblowers - including termination, demotions, "blacklisting" within their industry that Congress had to pass legislation to provide protection against retribution for whistleblowers.

The military is a breed unto itself when it comes to someone who blows the whistle; often times the retaliation against the whistleblower is more severe then the punishment meted out to the people who caused the reason for the whistleblowing in the first place. The career of CDR Strickland itself is impressive: a graduate of the Maine Maritime Academy, former US Naval Surface Warfare Officer, and then rising to the rank of Commander in the Coast Guard was stellar; much smaller then the Navy there are much fewer opportunities to serve as a Commanding Officer of a major Coast Guard Cutter. Tracking his career and duty assignments - including liaison with the Navy's Afloat Training Group, Operations Officer of a cutter, then Commanding Officer of a Patrol Boat, and Executive Officer of a major cutter is the career path that someone being groomed for command of a major cutter. While serving as the "Acting" Commanding Officer during short absences of the Commanding Officer) he acted as he should to report to higher command a sexual assault case that happened on his cutter.

During the investigation of the assault CDR Strickland discovered that the investigation was being stonewalled and probably covered up - because it probably would have put egg on the face of the señor leadership of the service. As a result of CDR Strickland "blowing the whistle" by calling the IG his career was destroyed by a group of senior officers, acting in concert, to punish him for whistleblowing.

CDR Strickland's story both of his career and the retaliation taken out against him for telling the truth needs to be told; needs to stay on Wikipedia. It is important to tell; despite a Federal Law designed to protect someone from retaliation and retribution for whistleblowing - that the protection of that law doesn't necessarily mean that the military - or a small group of senior officers, possibly acting on some "guidance" from someone even more senior, can ignore the law and allow retaliation to go on, unchecked.

CDR Strickland's story needs to be told so we can all learn from it. His career, a rising star, abruptly ended because someone chose to blatantly ignore the law.

KEEP the entry in its entirety.

CWO4 Tim Hecht — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.59.175 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (Already "voted" keep several times above) --Dual Freq (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The anonymous person DUALFREQ has made reference to my multiple posts as if he is the moderator of a discussion forum by claiming I have already "voted" several times on keeping this topic. As I understand this issue it isn't a popular vote decision but more of a rationalization as to why the entry should be kept or deleted. If that were the case (votes) I would note that DUALFREQ has (in his words) voted frequently and often.

My most recent post was in response to Wikipedia's request for additional information regarding the subject. DUALFREQ seems to believe that the decision to delete the entry for CDR Ben Strickland is due to "deficiencies" of Wiki policies; but when you see that he recently had (successfully) Judge Steverson's Wiki page deleted one must wonder what his true motive to delete Strickland's page. I for one don't believe he would have gone into this much detail and effort to try to remove two related Wiki pages without some hidden agenda. That is my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.30.197 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the nominator for this deletion discusion, I have not "voted" at all. Every time you lead your comment with "keep" you are saying you want to a vote. I realize you are the Strickland's friend, as you said in your first comment, and you also don't understand how wikipedia works, so I forgive your personal attacks. I'm sorry for not recognizing that you would be unwilling to read the policies and attempt to understand how this online encyclopedia works. As for Steverson, any other editors reading this can simply refer to Articles for deletion/London Steverson and Articles for deletion/London Steverson (2nd nomination). I was not involved in the first deletion and I voted once in the second, both were nominated by User:Xymmax, not me. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

SAVE ARTICLE IN ENTIRETY:

DUALFREQ - you are the one who keeps referring to the "vote" but there isn't a vote that is to be taken - it is by consensus. Here's from the top of the page:

"If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding 69.212.30.197 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) at the end."

Contrary to your assertion that I am not familiar to Wikipedia's requirements - I've read the "requirements" that you keep referring to. I am a friend of CDR Strickland; but I am also a retired Chief Warrant Officer 4 from the US Coast Guard and am quite familiar with the "behind the scenes" actions that have (and continue) affected someone's career.

Personal attacks? Hardly; I've asked you specific questions that you choose to ignore. One recurring question, asked again, is why are you so charged up to delete CDR Strickland's Wiki Page. Oh and so sorry but I am not a Wiki "Master" Editor - but I do know that there was a conspiracy or a behind the scenes effort by a certain group of senior officers to ruin an exceptional Coast Guard Officer's career in retaliation to a whistleblowing case. That story needs to be told - deleting the Wiki page will deny others from knowing, despite federal laws designed to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, that it happens...

I do not know the Wiki "rules" as intimately as you do; I do know how a behind the scenes group of senior officers (with or without a directed or implied "take care of his career" statement by a more senior officer) can make or break a career.

DUALFREQ do you have an hidden agenda? Are you personally connected with someone in the Service who would be opposed to this story being told?

CWO4 Tim Hecht 69.212.30.197 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already stated above I have no COI on this topic. I am not connected in any way, to any party, on any side of this issue, Strickland, Steverson, the USCG. I don't think I even know anyone who is in or is connected with the Coast Guard. You may put your tin foil hat away, I'm simply the one who nominated this for deletion for the reasons I've stated above, several times. I've created over 330 wikipedia pages here and have edited here for nearly 10 years, so yes, I know how the encyclopedia works. I have nothing more to say to you and you have made you point for your friend. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep For reasons I stated previously above: Subject is a whistleblower who by that aspect alone meets notability requirements by the Wiki guidance that the nominator himself posted. Taking into account what another contributor posted, there is no value in deleting the article. I.e., what will be accomplished? Nothing beyond burying an entry that apparently someone doesn't want the public to be aware of. Furthermore, a review of the nominator's WikiHounding/cyberstalking myself as an active Wiki contributor to three different encyclopedia pages (thus far) gives a clear and convincing appearance of a conflict by his own actions.Panama Jones (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin that this user already added a keep comment above on 10 October. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

To DUALFREQ and not necessarily related to the subject. Tin Foil Hat? I just love you arrogance DUALFREQ. I know how long you've been on Wikipedia, how many pages you've created, that I believe Wiki refers to you as a "Master Editor" so on and so forth.

Had you actually said anything to me other then a few feeble digs at me I could understand your desire to dismiss me with a scribble and scrawl of a blue pencil but you've neglected to reply to almost all my questions I've asked you in an effort to engage some meaningful discussion of this topic. I'm not really impressed with the number of pages created, edited by you, or deleted; I once served as the lead moderator for the Military.com Coast Guard Discussion Forums; reviewing thousands of posts in some cases editing them due to usually the inappropriateness of the post. That and $1.25 plus tax and tip will get a cup of coffee - and I remember when it was a dime.

Apparently Wikipedia felt that there wasn't enough rhetoric to delete or keep the topic; so I provided more information, germain to the topic, to give information about an organization (for lack of a better word) within an organization that wields enough power to destroy the career of a member of the organization. Friend of Ben Strickland or not - I have thirty years of experience, 30 years of active duty in the military, as an enlisted man and as an officer; and have witnessed just how a group of senior officers (and in the Coast Guard a full Commander is considered a senior officer) could use their positions to band together to ruin another officer's career.

CDR Strickland's story is a prime example of this behind the scene group of officers can and does operate. Just as you claim I don't have knowledge of Wikipedia's "rules" regarding submissions to Wikipedia I could say you don't have any clues how the military works either but since Wiki allows people to remain anonymous (as does military.com) then I can't say you are qualified to judge the content or understand the importance of leaving the page alone.

There has been, since the first armies or navies of the world began two distinct groups of people who are the powers of the services; the actual designated Commandant or Commanding General and the almost secret group of behind the scenes senior officers, usually Captains in the Navy and Coast Guard and Colonels in the other services, that conduct the dirty work such as what was done to CDR Strickland's career. It's important to remember that the irreparable damage to his career was done as retaliation to his whistleblowing activity; in direct violation of the Whistleblower's Protection Act. Even if I hadn't became his friend I would take the same position as I have taken. I don't stand to benefit in anyway from showing support for CDR Strickland; but his story; of an outstanding career destroyed because he stood his ground to ensure yet another sexual assault case wasn't swept under the rug needs to be told. Wikipedia is a good place to tell it.

The fact that I have no other interactions with Wikipedia other then reading articles, doesn't matter anymore then the number of pages you've written or edited; what matters is why this page is important.

CWO4 Tim Hecht — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.30.197 (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * --Dual Freq (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Getting back to policy based !votes, and  give the most coherent explanations as to what the status of this discussion should be. I appreciate the passion exhibited by those who support keeping the article, however their rationales don't appear to be in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Searches did not turn up enough for this individual to pass notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

OneL5969l - some times a story is so powerful, that it needs to be told and posted so all can share it. Looking at all the pages on Wikipedia would be near nigh impossible; but I'm sure there are plenty that have, while not meeting the "criteria" have still made in into Wikipedia. If everything fell into neat little defined boxes we'd be pretty bored and many things that should be said wouldn't be said.69.212.30.197 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)CWO4Tim Hecht


 * 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.