Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dustin Berg


 * 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   no consensus. As can be seen, the main question surrounding this discussion is whether or not the subject falls under WP:BLP1E. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is harder seen in the discussion, with the only conclusion that the subject is likely a borderline WP:BLP1E case. All factors considered (including being a BLP, and there a slight margin of votes towards keeping), it seems that a no consensus closure is appropriate. Regards to all, and as some mentioned, a merge discussion may be warranted on the article's talk page. Cheers,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dustin Berg

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

UNreferenced negative BLP, granted with external links that may back it up.

However, the the main reason to delete is it isn't notable. Seems to be part of a "lets write an article about every US sooldier who's been naughty in Iraq" series. One wonders at the motivation.

He went to Iraq. For some reason (stress, anger, illness?) he shot his Iraqi partner. He lied to cover up. He got caught and convicted of manslaughter. The end. Scott Mac (Doc) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Regardless of what he did, extensive coverage such as this makes him notable enough to not delete.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS and that's news coverage you are linking to. Is there any evidence of continuing interest or significance that would make this move from being newsworthy to being encyclopedic? (see also WP:BLP1E).--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Iraqi security forces: a strategy for success By Anthony H. Cordesman, Patrick Baetjer
 * Crimes of power & states of impunity: the U.S. response to terror By Michael Welch (Ph. D.)
 * Books also discuss Berg, so the fact newspapers are used as citations is hardly proof that this fits NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS is for "Somebody ran over Paris Hilton's dog" or "the security guard that eminem punched". Not for somebody convicted of killing an allied soldier in cold blood during a war. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WRT WP:NOTNEWS -- if the event is forgotten a couple of weeks afterwards, has not long term impact on policy discussions, or the public consciousness -- then WP:NOTNEWS applies -- correct? Sherurcij offered several instances when Berg's spontaneous shooting was considered appropriate to discuss long after his conviction.  There are others.  A year after his conviction the Associated Press distributed an article on more recent trials, suggesting the military may start to use the death penalty against GIs who kill when using force outside of the context of battle.  The article listed twenty similar past or pending cases, including Berg's, which might, in other circumstances, have resulted in a death sentence.  As I wrote below, serious readers want to look up further details of when they read news articles.  I know I want to do that when I have questions about things I read.  I believe our serious readers first stop is the same as mine -- the wikipedia.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Keep, hate to be the first to break Godwin's law, but we do seem to have a biography on individual soldiers from every war who "broke rank" and did something bad and were later prosecuted for it. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't follow the Godwin's law bit. The other half of your arguement seems to be that other crap exists so we must keep that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, did I call the other articles crap? I believe they fit the scope of the encyclopaedia, just as I believe this does. As an aside, it's generally considered annoying if the nominator decides to argue with every person who disagrees with him. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion. That means it is a conversation. My point is that the existence of another article doesn't mean we should keep this one. What I think we should be debating is whether this has any lasting significance, or whether it is just a news story, in which case our policy (WP:NOT) would indicate we remove it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of this murder, and we should avoid having an article about them barring extreme circumstances. NW ( Talk ) 18:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, standard WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The nomination states: "For some reason (stress, anger, illness?) he shot his Iraqi partner." This is exactly the kind of circumstance that earns what our nominator calls "naughty" soldiers passing mention in editorials, and commentary.  Those editorials either assume their readers already know the previously published details of Dustin Berg's story -- or they hope to gloss over those details, and paint a different version than what neutral sources provide.  Our readers want to be able to look to their favorite neutral source, for a balanced neutral account.  Suppressing neutral, balanced material, backed up WP:RS, is a disservice to the serious readers who look to us to provide neutral and comprehensive coverage of notable topics.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's see, he joined the military, served in a war, killed a friendly, lied about it, got a Purple Heart for it, was tried, and convicted, and had the medal taken away. Any one of those alone would possibly fail WP:BLP1E, but all these events taken together create notable BLP. -- Kendrick7talk 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I think it's a shame that deletionists are twisting a rule, BLP1E, which was designed to prevent the ridicule of circus freaks and petty criminals, in order to whitewash from our pages the biography of a notorious murderer of international repute. -- Kendrick7talk 01:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Not notable, wp:blp1e. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or possibly merge. At base this is still a BLP1E, and a negative one at that (which makes it worse). The key point for me is that the article section "Long term impact of Berg's shooting" does not in fact demonstrate a long-term impact, nor notability for Berg beyond the crime of which he was convicted. That section makes it clear that increasing calls to re-institute the death penalty in the military, and the move to tighter rules of engagement, did not stem solely or even primarily from Berg's case, rather his case was just one of many where American GI's behaved badly (to put it mildly). Another way of putting it is that the section as written is not a get-out-of-BLP1E card. Essentially what we have is an ostensibly biographical article with nothing whatsoever about this person and their life (which is what a biography is), but rather a crime scene report and account of an investigation/trial. In a situation like that it's usually a sign that BLP1E is operative and that we should probably not have an article on the person. I would probably be okay with merging this into a general article about notable crimes committed by "coalition" soldiers in Iraq. I do not believe that currently exists (Human rights in post-invasion Iraq and Iraq prison abuse scandals were the closest I could find), but it probably could since there have been general discussions about the phenomenon, and mentions of individual cases would be appropriate. In the context of a possible merge it's worth taking note of some similar AfDs in the past, Articles for deletion/James P. Barker and more importantly Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green. Ultimately the articles on both of these GIs were merged/redirected to Mahmudiyah killings which was quite right in my view. Berg's case is not completely analogous since it was a one-off event involving two people (thus no ready target like Mahmudiyah killings), but it's not the only case of its kind, and we could discuss the most noteworthy examples of violent crimes in a general article (I'm not clever enough to think of a title at the moment). If such an article was created now I'd support a merge, but if not I think this needs to be deleted as a BLP1E, with the content possibly restored and merged later once there is a target for merging. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above comment contains the passage: "Essentially what we have is an ostensibly biographical article with nothing whatsoever about this person and their life (which is what a biography is)..." I have seen this argument, or close variations of it, advanced by those advocating deletion, in many afds.  I suggest that if someone is truly notable, it doesn't matter if we know their date of birth, or where they want to school, or what they did before or after the events that made them notable.  I wrote an essay "The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked...", where I describe a notable historical figure about whom we knew nothing personal whatsoever.  He was a medieval scholar, who published a significant scientific advance under a pseudonym, using the name of an earlier scholar.  Nothing about this individual is known, not his age, day job, religion, location, or even exactly when he published his work.  It seems to me that False Geber is clearly sufficiently notable to have an article about him, in the complete absence of any confirmed biographical details.  And, in general, it seems to me that when a good faith search doesn't produce those routine biographical details, we should go with the details we have.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kendrick7 has suggested, below, renaming the article the murder of Hussein Kamel Hadi Dawood al-Zubeidi, per WP:PSEUDO. While other contributors say they would be okay with merging some information from this article into an omnibus article "about notable crimes committed by 'coalition' soldiers in Iraq".  In my experience these omnibus articles are often a big disservice to our readers -- because they erode the value of two of the most powerful features that distinguish wikipedia articles from plain old world-wide-web pages.  Merging perfectly satisfactory small articles to omnibus articles seriously erodes the value of the "what links here" button.  Currently it can provide a list of articles that explicitly link to "Dustin Berg".  This is very useful.  Once merged clicking "what links here" would be largely worthless to a reader only interested in Dustin Berg's case.  Similarly perfectly satisfactory small articles allow a reader or contributor to have a narrowly focussed watchlist.  A reader or contributor may only be interested in some of notable cases in Iraq.  It is best for them for the articles to remain separate, so they can selectively choose which to watch.  Once merged, if they put the omnibus article on their watchlist they get advised of every change to that article -- when most of the changes won't interest them.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The section there makes sense to me, for it shows the impact on history-worthy events which is one of the considerations for keeping this sort of article.  It was removed by the nominator just now in the course of the discussion, but I have reverted him, so as not to give the impression of deliberately weakening an article while it's up for Afd. If the article is kept, the matter of content can be discussed in the usual way.    DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we're just coming at it from two different angles. Your view is that he's an individual whose actions (along with those of many others) led to certain history-worthy changes (e.g. altered rules of engagement for the American armed forces) and thus he should have an article, whereas I start with the history-worthy aspects (the fact that American troops committed a number of crimes while occupying Iraq, changes to military policy during the war) and see Berg as just one example of individuals who had an effect of these larger events, and therefore someone who is only worth mentioning in "event" articles since he is not otherwise notable. I don't think we lose any encyclopedic information by merging his info into an event article (or deleting it for now, and then restoring and merging when an event article is created), and I think WP:BLP1E is the operative policy policy here, which seems to say clearly that the merge-to-the-event approach is the correct one. WP:HARM is relevant here too I think, and while personally I am appalled by what Berg did (though there could well be mitigating psychological factors the like of which are seen in war), I think we do actively harm him (unfairly and unnecessarily) by maintaining an article that mentions only the crime he committed and nothing else about his life when we could put the relevant content elsewhere. Currently our article is the number one google hit on a search of Berg's name. Obviously news stories about this will linger and haunt Berg for years, but we're under no obligation to add to that with a wiki article about him, and indeed BLP policy seems to me to militate against that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your concern about an article on this notable person will "haunt Berg for years" is misplaced. Any killer could claim an article on them would "haunt them for years".  That he spontaneously shot an ally, in cold blood, is extremely well documented.  That is what BLP requires that we don't frivolously republish wild rumors, innuendo and slander.  But when someone is convicted this is not a wild rumor.  I think our nominator has unconsciously made a big mistake.  Our nominator is writing from the POV that it is routine, normal, mundane, expected, for American GIs to spontaneously shoot their foreign partners in the middle of an uneventful routine patrol.  I don't accept that premise.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say I was concerned that these events would haunt them for years, I simply said that they would, and furthermore that "we're under no obligation to add to that with a wiki article about him, and indeed BLP policy seems to me to militate against that." Specifically, BLP1E says we generally do not have articles about individuals in situations like this, rather they should be merged to an "event" article. You also seem to be making up out of whole cloth the idea that the nominator "is writing from the POV that it is routine, normal, mundane, expected, for American GIs to spontaneously shoot their foreign partners in the middle of an uneventful routine patrol." Did he say anything remotely like that in the nomination? Of course not, rather he said, this is a one-off story and not worthy of an article. Per our BLP policy, that is exactly right. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you and I reading the same nomination? Our nominator wrote: "he shot his Iraqi partner. He lied to cover up. He got caught and convicted of manslaughter. The end."  He characterized Berg as simply having been "naughty".  Please re-read what our nominator wrote, and tell me you do not recognize that he has fallen into the POV that this was a routine event.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're reading the same thing, it's just that you are reading into it while I'm reading what was actually written. He does not ever use the word "routine"&mdash;he is clearly saying Berg does not deserve an article just because of this one tragedy, which is what our BLP policy says. Ironically, given your charges that the deletion argument is somehow evidence of American bias, if I recall correctly the nominator is not American. This is all beside the point though so I'm not going to debate it further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Our nominator never called this killing a tragedy. He characterized this deliberate killing as "naughty".  Seriously, you don't recognize characterizing a deliberate killing as "naughty" suggests it was routine, mundane, unimportant?  Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. No matter how I look at it, this is still WP:BLP1E. WP:NOTNEWS probably applies too. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with those who have stated his actions did cause policy to be changed, this a notable case for the history books. Very encyclopedic.   D r e a m Focus  13:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an important point so I feel obligated to reply. It is simply not true that his actions caused policy to be changed. There are two things discussed in the article somewhat in line with that idea: calls to bring back the death penalty in the military, and changes to the rules of engagement. For the first see the story here, where Berg is one of 14 soldiers mentioned as having been convicted of a crime for the death of an Iraqi since 2003. Four pending cases and two acquittals are also mentioned. The article simply does not say that "Berg's actions caused policy to be changed," or indeed that his actions (solely or even primarily) led to a possibility of that happening (I don't think any soldier has been sentenced death since then, i.e. the policy has not changed, and if it did happen it would be this guy which is a completely unrelated case). This article, our source for the info about rules of engagement, does not remotely claim that Berg's actions contributed to the changing of those rules, rather he is presented as an example of how "soldiers themselves can face consequences for wrongfully killing Iraqis." My point here is that it is not, given the sources presented, up for debate as to whether or not Berg caused any military policy to be changed. He did not, and the sources do not remotely claim that he did. Given that, Berg is a clear-cut example of a WP:BLP1E, meaning this needs to be deleted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the other place it was claimed the Lolita Baldur article described cases similar to Berg's -- that is simply incorrect. The other cases she described were unauthorized "mercy killings", the questionable use of force in combat, and lying about a tragic accident.  Correspondent above brings up Major Nidal Malik Hasan, which reinforces my concern that when American soldiers kill other American soldiers they should not receive different coverage from us than when American soldiers deliberately kill allied personnel.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're misreading again, and it's not really acceptable to misconstrue what I said to such an extreme degree. Did I say American soldiers who kill other Americans should receive more coverage than those who kill allied personnel? Re-read what I wrote about Nidal. It says that if the U.S. military is going to seek the death penalty against anyone (i.e. change its policy) it would be Nidal, which is simply a fact which I presented as an aside to my main point. I'm not in charge of the U.S. military so you can't blame me for its officials being more angry when a GI kills American soldiers than when he or she kills allied ones (or foreign civilians). Ironically I was one who argued strongly for Nidal's article to be deleted when it was first created, and you will find few people on earth more opposed to what has happened in Iraq than I. If you are not going to read what I actually write and instead impart meanings to the words which are simply not there it's not possible to have a conversation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I went and looked at the arguments you offered to delete the article on Major Nidal. I'll skip over most of the points where I disagree with you.  In that discussion you both: (1) compared Nidal's story with that of Richard Jewell's; and (2) claimed Nidal's story would "fade into obscurity", if he were acquitted.  I too have brought up Richard Jewell's story in afd discussions.  You wrote that thinking of how the wikipedia would handled his story, when it broke in 1996, made you "shudder".  I, on the other hand, have suggested that our policies on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER would have protected Jewell so our coverage would have been an island of fairness when contrasted with that of the MSM.  But, you contradicted yourself when you suggested Nidal's case would "fade into obscurity", if he were acquitted.  We shouldn't expect Richard Jewell's case to "fade into obscurity", any time soon.  That is another contrast between your arguments as to why the aritcle on Nidal should be deleted, and your arguments here.  You repeated, many times, that Nidal's story was a breaking story, and the allegations hadn't been tested in court.  You repeatedly suggested that, if he were acquitted, even if he were acquitted due to mental illness, his story would, in your words, "fade into obscurity".  Well, Berg's is not a breaking story.  He has been convicted.  During World War 2 Japanese citizens, and citizens whose parents or grandparents were Japanese citizens, were sent to internment camps in the USA and Canada.  We cover those camps, that internment, and we have articles on some of the individual internees.  I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying that we should nominate articles for deletion when someone thinks they are largely forgotten, and a nominator thinks they should be entirely forgotten.  Should I and others who think there is continued value in covering the internment of Japanese-Americans and Japanese-Canadians be on watch that other contributors will try to erase those stories from the historical record, on the grounds their stories have "faded into obscurity"?  I don't know if that is what you really meant, but if it is what you really meant, I find your suggestion frightening.  Similarly, I believe Berg's notability has been established, and any arguments that he has "faded into obscurity" are disservices to our future readers.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've got me, I'm in favor of deleting our coverage of the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII&mdash;that's the obvious implication of arguing to delete (or if possible merge) this article on one dude. You're so far afield of the discussion (and reality) here that I can't even reply to your argument, but if you look on my user page you'll see I'm a history graduate student (also a college teacher) so erasing things from the historical record is hardly something I'm going to do. I'm not going to discuss the Nidal article with you because that AfD is over and the level of coverage of Nidal and Berg are in different universes. Tthe two are not analogous, and somehow you've managed to turn my simple statement of fact that Nidal is probably the only U.S. soldier in jeopardy of being sentenced to death for his crimes into me being okay with putting Korematsu v. United States up for deletion because most people don't know what the hell that is anymore. Unsurprisingly I'm basically I'm done with this conversation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You chose to bring up your arguments for deletion of the article on Major Nidal. If you didn't think your arguments about the Nidal afd were relevant I suggest you probably shouldn't have brought them up here.  You did bring up your arguments in the Nidal afd, and as a courtesy to you, I took the trouble to go and read what you wrote.  So, I find your use of mockery and sarcasm of my good faith response to arguments you yourself referred to inappropriate.  In addition to your use of mockery and sarcasm being uncivil, I remind you that many valuable contributors to the English language wikipedia are not native speakers of English.  Mockery and sarcasm are tricky, depend on an understanding of idiom not accessible to non-native speakers of English.  This is an additional reason to simply state your position in as clear a fashion as possible.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WRT your academic qualifications, I worked in the academic world for about a decade -- in a support role, not as an academic. I liked most of the grad students I worked with, and had great respect for a minority of them.  But if any of them were to claim their academic qualifications, in and of themselves, meant those of us who weren't professional academics should defer to them, I'd remind them that the wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and tell them that I don't consider their real world academic qualifications, generally relevant.  I'd tell them that there are projects similar to the wikipedia, like the Citizendium, which encourage professional academics to make use of their professional expertise, and contribute what wikipedia contributors would call "original research".  But professional academics who contribute here are not WP:RS just as I am not an WP:RS.  The respect I give a wikipedia contributor who is a professional academic, on their day job, is going to be based on the strength of their arguments, and, frankly, on their willingness -- or lack thereof -- to engage in civil, collegial discussion.  I've reviewed the Geneva Conventions, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Army Regulation 190-8 -- the regulation which describes how GIs should treat captives.  Should I hesitate to challenge a professional academic's assertions on war crimes, when I have no reason to believe they too have reviewed these documents?  To what extent should I defer to a professional academic's opinions of war crimes, when I know they have reviewed relevant documents?  Why shouldn't I give their informed opinion no more and no less respect than I would give any other intelligent, informed, good faith contributor, when they can conduct discussion in a civil, collegial manner?  After all, they are not WP:RS, just as I am not.  Any position they put into article space has to be backed up by references -- same as the rest of us.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good god. Did I ask you to defer to me because I am a grad student, indeed did I even remotely imply you should do that? No, obviously I did not, and to basically accuse me of doing that as you do above is a shitty thing to do. You suggested (bizarrely) that I might want to scrub our articles on Japanese-Americans who were put in camps during WWII. I responded that of course I don't want to do that, particularly since I study and teach history and would never want to "scrub" any history-related articles. From that you suddenly start talking as though I asked you do as I say because I'm in grad school, or that I'm somehow contributing "original research" and should go over to Citizendium instead. Nonsense. Again you are making stuff up, and I must say in years of AfD discussions I have never had anyone repeatedly misconstrue what I've written as you have here. I don't know if this is something you normally do, but it's pretty much impossible to have a conversation with someone who keeps making absurd accusations that have no connection with reality. Reply if you want, but quit making stuff up and reply to what is actually written. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -- various commentators here claim the blp1e clause of the BLP policy requires deleting this article. But the blp1e section has a second paragraph, which states: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate."  Americans soldiers spontaneously killing their fellow US soldiers, on purpose, not "friendly-fire is rare.  It has happened just three times this decade.  And we provided extensive coverage of each instance.  American soldiers spontaneously killing allied soliders, on purpose, not "friendly-fire", is even more rare.  I believe this is the only incident this past decade, and perhaps deep into the last century.  I urge the closing administrator to therefore discount the blp1e arguments.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the article. He did not kill a soldier, he killed an Iraqi policeman with whom he was "partnered," probably during a routine neighborhood patrol designed to increase cooperation between the U.S. military and the civil authorities (i.e. not military) in Iraq. And you are incorrect that it's the only similar incident in the last decade, much less "deep into the last century." This AP story (which we cite in the article on Berg) mentions two cases where American GIs killed Iraqi soldiers, and one where they killed an Iraqi translator. So basically all of your claims are incorrect&mdash;he didn't kill an allied soldier, rather a safety official in an allied government, other allied soldiers have been killed recently by Americans, not to mention that dozens of Iraqi citizens have been killed by American soldiers. So the event here is not "significant", and indeed the AP story cited above mentions it as one of 20 similar cases. Discounting the BLP1E argument is about the only way to avoid deletion, but you have not presented a valid reason for doing so. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, his victim was an Iraqi policeman, not an Iraqi soldier -- a minor point, when he was armed with an AK-47 and they were on a joint patrol. I continue to suggest that it is an instance of Americo-centricism that when American soldiers kill other American soldiers that event is regarded as extraordinary, but not when they kill allied personnel.  I stand by my interpretation of the nominator and several other contributor's comments here, that treating this as "not news" is equivalent to stating that the non-combat, non-friendly-fire deliberate killing of allied soldiers (or reasonable equivalent) is routine and mundane.  Further, I looked at the other GIs convicted.  Contrary to your claims, none of those cases come anywhere comparable to Dustin Berg's killing.  Those men were charged/convicted with unauthorized "mercy killings", or questionable use of force in what they regarded as a combat situation, or in one case lying about a tragic accident.  None of the other cases involved the deliberate shooting an allied personnel in a non-combat setting.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously you missed Federico Daniel Merida. But even putting that aside, you are not explaining why "the deliberate shooting an allied personnel in a non-combat setting" is somehow different (and apparently more notable) than shooting an Iraqi civilian. For me they are both examples of a member of an occupying army killing citizens of the occupied country (and equally tragic and newsworthy), and for you to claim that an American GI killing an Iraqi policeman (and yes, that is different than an Iraqi soldier) is somehow particularly worthy of coverage is nothing more than your own opinion and original research. You may think it's different, but the AP story covered all of these incidents together and so do other press accounts, suggesting that reliable sources view them all as a larger pattern of unsanctioned violence by American personnel in Iraq. That's exactly why all of these incidents and individuals should be covered in one article (Crimes committed by American military personnel against Iraqi citizens, or something similar) rather than in individual bios. The only evidence you have that this is not a BLP1E is your unsourced assertion that Berg's case matters more because you think it does, but that's not what secondary sources suggest. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WRT to Federico Daniel Merida -- are you acknowledging that you exagerrated when you claimed Dustin Berg's case was no different than the other cases described by Lolita Baldor?
 * Why is an American soldier killing allied personnel more notable than an American soldier killing an Iraqi civilian? Please don't mix apples and oranges.  How many Iraqi civilians have been killed by the USA?  Several hundred thousand the last time I checked.  Almost none of those several thousand Iraqi deaths received any coverage in WP:RS.  Of those that did, most seem to be unambiguously "friendly fire", or "friendly fire" given the loose rules of engagement GIs operated under in past years.  Yes, the killing of civilians, when it wasn't "friendly fire" and when covered significantly enough in WP:RS, merits coverage here.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect to Federico Daniel Merida, I do not know what you are asking. I never said Berg's case was "no different," I said it was one of a number of "similar incidents," and Merida's incident is indeed "similar" as are a number of others in terms of U.S. soldiers killing Iraqis. You really need to work on responding to what people actually write and not what your brain thinks they wrote.


 * With respect to your second point, obviously there is a (practical, but, for me at least, not moral) difference between killing Iraqi civilians under the rules of engagement (we bombed your house but it was on orders so it's "okay") and one soldier just walking up and shooting someone in the head for no reason. The latter incidents get prosecuted (and covered), the former usually do not (unfortunately). My point above is that reliable sources have grouped these "illegal" killings (by U.S. military rules) together and have not said, "Berg's case is a big deal because he killed a policeman, not a baker." You are the only person suggesting his crime is different from the dozens of other crimes committed by American service members in Iraq. If you really want to keep this you should find a source that talks about Berg's case being particularly extraordinary, because so far the only one we have is you and that obviously doesn't cut it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, in the interests of brevity I didn't point out that in your question you didn't distinguish between civilians killed in "friendly fire" incidents, and deliberate killings that couldn't possibly be justified by the rules of engagement. You have suggested above, several times, that I don't understand you.  If you aren't trying to somehow suggest I can't distinguish between "friendly fire" incidents and deliberate killings that couldn't possibly be authorized by the official rules of engagement, then, try as I might, I frankly don't know what you meant to suggest.
 * I am confused by your claim that I am the only person who has argued that Berg's case is notable -- surely all the other contributors who voiced a "keep" opinion expressed that position?
 * You suggested that a soldier who killed an Iraqi baker, in circumstances that couldn't be justified under the rules of engagement, not an Iraqi soldier or policeman, would be just as notable as the soldier who killed killed an Iraqi soldier or policeman. On a personal level I agree.  But my personal feelings on this are just as irrelevant as your personal feelings.  If you come across a soldier, for whom there are this level of WP:RS, who killed an Iraqi baker, doctor, or schoolteacher, in circumstances that can't be justified under the rules of engagement, and you want to argue that soldier, or that incident, merits an article, tell me, and I'll help work on it, and argue for its retention if is nominated for deletion.  Berg's deliberate killing is noteworthy because (1) it was a deliberate killing; and (2) he was actually caught and prosecuted.  If you know of an Iraqi civilian, whose deliberated killing by a soldier, couldn't possibily be justified by the rules of engagement, I'll be happy to work with you on covering that individual, or that incident.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WRT blp1e -- IMO this nomination illustrates some very troublesome weaknesses of the blp1e portion of BLP, and how it is interpreted here in the deletion fora. I think Kendrick7 makes several important points.  Kendrick7 suggested Berg played a role in multiple events.  I think it is a serious weakness that no policy or guideline tries to define what is a "one event".  But even if, for the sake of argument, Berg was only involved in a "one event", that blp1e section of BLP has that second paragraph: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate."  Coverage spans four years, and was picked up world-wide.  I think that while Berg does not rival John Hinckley, this article too is one of the exceptions allowed for in the second paragraph.


 * BLP is not one of the wikipedia's original policies. Prior to the policy we relied on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER, and common sense.  One problem with this kind of overly broad interpretation of blp1e is that it opens a backdoor path for the wikipedia to be become adulterated by contributor's bias.


 * The second paragraph of this nomination is written from the point of view that soldiers committing murder or manslaughter is routine and unexceptional. No offense but this seems to me to be an injection of a controversial point of view -- with no points offered to defend the injection of this controversial point of view.


 * People get killed in wars and other conflicts. Most of those deaths are unexceptional, and don't merit coverage here.  Soldiers killing enemy soldiers in battle is routine and unexceptional.  And unfortunately it is also pretty common for soldiers to make what their officers and peers recognize as honest mistakes, and, in the heat of battle to kill their buddies, allied troops, or innocent civilian bystanders -- so called "friendly fire incidents.  According to the laws of war, none of these are crimes. Similarly, killing prisoners who are rioting, or trying to escape, and who won't obey an order to halt, is not a crime.


 * But the Geneva Conventions, national regulations, like the USA's Uniform Code of Military Justice, and local commander's "rules of engagement", lay out when and what kind of use of force is authorized. Anything beyond that is a crime.


 * Off-duty soldiers killing their buddies, civilians, or allied troops is exceptional. The death of prisoners who weren't rioting or trying to escape is also exceptional.  As are killings like this one, where a soldier deliberately killed his ally on what should have been a routine patrol.


 * As I wrote above, that 2006 article that talked about the possibility of harsher sentences for GIs who kill listed Berg and 20 other cases. Our nominator used mockery, rather than reasoned argument, when they characterized GIs who were alleged to have been killers, and mocked the idea that we should: "write an article about every US sooldier who's been naughty".  I encourage them to drop the mockery, and offer a serious explanation why every soldier who has faced the allegation they acted as killers, not soldiers, and been the subject of substantial, world-wide coverage, should not be covered by the wikipedia.  This does not preclude having an article, or several articles even, that address what the cases of killers or alleged killers have in common.  But, when these individuals are the subject of sufficient substantial coverage to establish notability, and allow us to draft a neutrally written article that cites verifiable, reliable, authoritative references, a summary article is not an adequate substitute for individual articles on the individual notable cases of killers or alleged killers.


 * The Lolita Baldor article, cited half a dozen times in this afd, devotes a paragraph to Dustin Berg's case, and another paragraph for those of the other killers and alleged killers. Currently, a curious reader of her article, who wanted more detail, or a high school student, or an undergrad, doing their homework, can look up the notable details, which have been covered in verifiable, reliable, authoritative references.  If this nomination for deletion were to succeed the curious reader, high school student or undergrad, would have to start right back at the beginning, and do their own web-search -- even though some of us already conducted this web-search for them.  A merge would be little better.  If every notable, referenced detail from the individual articles were merged into an omnibus article, there is no justification for the merge.


 * In terms of the injection of bias into article space I think we were better off when we relied on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER, and common sense, prior to the use of deletion arguments based on blp1e, which rely so heavily on contributor's personal points of view.


 * Finally there is an aspect of the current version of the wikimedia software that those who routinely favor merging routinely overlook or discount. Our current version of the wikimedia software allows us to put entire articles on our watchlist.  But it does not allow us to put a section of a large omnibus article on our watchlist.  Suppose an interested reader, or interested contributor, wanted to be advised of new material, or excisions that concerned Dustin Berg, or Federico Daniel Merida -- the two GIs who killed allied personnel -- but didn't want to be advised of new material or excisions that concerned GIs who weren't convicted, or who killed Iraqi civilians.  Currently contributors can place those two articles on their watchlist, and leave the others off their watchlist.  Alternately, the contributor can choose to place the articles about individuals who weren't convicted on their watchlist, and leave the rest off.


 * A related aspect of the current restrictions on how we are advised about wikilinks concerns what makes the "what links here" button useful. Currently a contributor who clicks on the "what links here" button for Dustin Berg can expect the articles listed there to specificly address Dustin Berg.  If the Dustin Berg article were merged into an omnibus article, with the articles on the killers redirected to that omnibus article, the utility of the "what links here" would be seriously eroded.  The list of articles produced by clicking on the what links here button would be much longer, and very few of those articles would specifically address Dustin Berg.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If worst comes to worst, per WP:PSEUDO. nothing precludes us from having an article on the murder of Hussein Kamel Hadi Dawood al-Zubeidi, with all the same information, even with Dustin Berg as a redirect to it, although I find such shuffling of the deck-chairs a tad pretentious. -- Kendrick7talk 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   S warm  ( Talk ) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. There are more than enough significant, reliable sources discussing this person, what he did, the surrounding events and aftermath etc., to consider him notable by just about any guideline you choose. Just another "naughty soldier"? Please. Wine Guy  ~Talk  02:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP-1E. The broader issues should be included in articles on those subjects ie. military tribunals, the death penalty etc. etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:N/CA outlines the notability of criminal acts, while WP:PERP (a sub-section of the former, the notability guidelines for perpetrators of crime.  Given this article is about the individual, rather than the event, WP:PERP applies.  A criminal perpetrators is notable if any one of the following is true: 1.  The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself... (Berg fails on this one) 2.  The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure... (Fails) 3.  The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event...  This, according to the guideline is true if there is persistent coverage about the event.  This is also not true.  Here you can see that news peaked during the event (the trial) and has dropped away completely i a relatively short period of time.  Compare this to Beverley Allitt, who has sustained news coverage for more than a decade.  Other than that, he gets little more than a passing mention in articles about related matters (for example the North County Times article cited in the "Reaction" section of the article. In all, there is simply not enough under the current guidelines for notability of perpetrators of crime to warrant Dustin Berg's inclusion.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep or merge. The nominator does not mention: Dustin_Berg which was a direct reaction to this case, making it much more than just one event. Incredibly well referenced, as the nominator appears to acknowledges. Okip  (formerly Ikip) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only does he not mention it, but he made an attempt to remove it from the article during the period that the AfD was running, on Feb 2 to be exact, at    That shows pretty clearly he recognizes how much it undercuts his case.    DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. A few things to note with the "Reaction" section: 1.  Berg rates only a passing mention in the first article, along with many others.  He isn't central to it in any way.  Similarly, in the second article, he is not central to the story - here we have a long story with a short reference to Berg. 2.  Even if the reaction were significant, we have to ask if the reaction is to the event or the person.  When it comes to the notability of criminal acts, it is usually the event that is notable and causes the reaction.  The perpetrator will be notable less often (see the notability guidelines as to what makes a perpetrator notable). 3.  In this case, if the perpetrator is notable, why not the victim?  The answer is that neither are really notable, as they are only known for the one event and even within the event haven't established notability in accordance with WP guidelines.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipeterproject is quite correct, and as can been seen from my edit summery this was my reason for removing it. Not as DGG falsely asserts 'because I recognise it undercuts my case". That is a clear assumption of my bad faith, and ignoring my reasoned edit summery. An apology for this attack on my integrity would be appreciated.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the face of the debacle you recently felt compelled to start, leading many people to question your integrity, you have a surprisingly thin skin Power.corrupts (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and possibly re-name. The case has some BLP1E features, but the underlying event is certainly sufficiently notable to deserve a separate article and not to be merged to anything else. The amount of coverage is significant and it extends over a significant period of time, so this is not a WP:NOTNEWS case. The BLP1E issue can be solved by simply moving the name of the article to something like Court matial of Dustin Berg or something similar. Nsk92 (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with preceding - although it has some BLP1E features, it is integral in the sequelae raised in the article. Maybe merging some of the related crimes but I am not sure what it can be renamed to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Classic misunderstanding/misuse of BLP1E. While a BLP article is probably not justified, it is obvious that the case has general interest.  The solution is to rename and improve the article and keep the content,  not to delete the content.  It's the old story with the baby, the bath and the water. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why is it obvious?  This is the problem with these kind of debates.  Sometimes it's uncclear what we are debating!  I would argue (see above) that the article in question (the BLP) is "obviously" not notable in accordance with the policy.  But the debate might be completely different if it were about the actual event.  So is a keep really a keep if it's actually supporting a move and a rewrite?  Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.