Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehren Watada (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   keep. But rewrite to be about the case, and move to an appropriate page title. Shimeru (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ehren Watada
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Was nominated 4 years ago and closed with no consensus. This is WP:BLP1E. Watada was completely non-notable before being charged with the crimes and has done nothing notable since his trial ended. His case was covered by numerous sources, but everything comes back to a single event. I do not view trials, appeals etc as separate events. They are all part of one event, his refusal to deploy.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- BLP1E is about people who otherwise lead private lives. Generally speaking, people who do half hour interviews on a nationally syndicated radio show  aren't trying to maintain private lives. Also, a quick NPR search  shows the story "What Does Watada Case Mean for Military Law?", indicating that there is more to just this story than just a "refusal to deploy".Umbralcorax (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * His interviews have been about....yeah, his one event. What effect his case may or may not have on military law really isn't relevent. The case itself may (or may not) be notable, that doesn't make him notable. His sole claim to notability is all connected to one event, his refusal to deploy. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom, this article fails WP:ONEEVENT / WP:BLP1E (if a long, drawn out one). Even if it strengthens the case for WP:BLP1E if the person remains low profile, not doing does not necessarily make one notable for anything other than that the one event. Per WP:ONEEVENT, this deserves to be and is already mentioned in Opposition to the Iraq War, but shouldn’t get its own article. Novaseminary (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Niteshift36 already put forward this point, well before I added this comment


 * Short comment: avoid BLP1E issues and move to Court-Martial of Ehren Watada or similar article title, and then test for notability.
 * Long comment: I have read the previous AfD and would argue that both it and this current AfD miss a crucial point: all the to-and-fro about whether Lt Watada is notable or not is not what should be under discussion; it is the Watada case is what should be under discussion. OK, lets assume Watada fails BLP1E. Some legal matters are long and drawn out without being notable. Some legal matters hit hot-button issues without being notable.  Some legal matters have extensive media coverage, and while possibly passing WP:GNG, are still not notable.  The Watada matter is long and drawn out, hits hot-button issues and has extensive media coverage. Move to Court-Martial of Ehren Watada or similar article title, and then test for notability
 * --Shirt58 (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I kind of thought that when I said "The case itself may (or may not) be notable, that doesn't make him notable", that indicated I thought there was a possibility that the case itself could be notable. A great many cases are like that. Case in point Katz v. United States is a landmark case, far more important than this case will ever be, yet Charles Katz doesn't qualify for an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- His story was important 4 years ago and his inclusion here, indefinitely, in the Wikipedia will ensure the future existence of this valuable reference piece. --AStanhope (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion on making it into an article about the case, rather than a bio? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as article about the case, but let's make sure to strip out as much of the biographical data as possible. -- Nuujinn (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If enough people will agree to that, I'd be willing to withdraw the nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me. Novaseminary (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the case, but drop the BLP.T3h 1337 b0y (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename : per WP:PERP, WP:MILPEOPLE, and WP:BLP1E, the individual isn't notable, but the court martial is and political fallout is.  bahamut0013  words deeds 22:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed !vote to Merge with List of Iraq War resisters per Bonewah.  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of Iraq War resisters or similar and consolidate information there. This is one of a number of similar articles which all fall under WP:BLP1E, and should be merged in my opinion. There is plenty of useful information here but do we really need articles on everyone who deserted during the Iraq war? Kyle Snyder (soldier), Robin Long, Josh Key, Kevin Benderman, Malcolm Kendall-Smith I could go on easily. Bonewah (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a pretty good idea too. That could also encompass Victor Agosto, which I also nominated for deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and have changed my vote accordingly.  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly ok with that solution and would withdraw the nom accordingly if we could get a couple more !votes for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't merge with List of Iraq War resisters: If we merged all notable resisters into List of Iraq War resisters, then the article would be too long: See Article_size in the section Article_size :

Here are some calculations:
 * List of Iraq War resisters - 27,299 bytes
 * Robin Long – 28,518 bytes
 * Joshua Key - 19,054 bytes
 * Malcolm Kendall-Smith - 15,707 bytes
 * Ehren Watada - 34,575 bytes
 * GRAND TOTAL - 125,153 bytes

Notice that the total size of List of Iraq War resisters far exceeds the recommended maximum even with only four war resisters merged. Imagine what would happen if all the other Iraq war resisters with Wikipedia articles were also merged. Things would become unwieldy very quickly. For example: Kyle Snyder (soldier), Daniel Sandate, Darrell Anderson, Ben Griffin, Agustin Aguayo, Kevin Benderman, Aidan Delgado, Stephen Funk, Camilo Mejía, Pablo Paredes, Mohisin Khan, André Shepherd

-Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the list of other bios to look into. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not swayed by this argument. For one, it wouldn't be a straight copy and paste job (the redundancies, infoboxes, and other administrative stuff like categories take up a lot more disk space than you'd think, but they wouldn't be all copied), negating most o fthe article size argument. And two, we'd really have to consolidate/prune some of these articles down, they have more menail detail than is really necessary. And lastly, while the topic of military members resisting the way they are ordered to fight may be notable, the issue here is than they individually don't have notability (overlapping my second point that some of the stuff on these pages can be safely cut without losing encyclopedic focus on the notable aspects of the topic).  bahamut0013  words deeds 17:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - My first choice is to keep. Wikipedia is not paper and doesn't have the limitations of a paper encyclopedia. People are attracted to Wikipedia precisely because it is a fuller resource of reference material for interested readers.  If there is no compelling reason delete, then why delete? In a digital encyclopedia, the onus is on the person to provide a compelling reason to delete. Interested readers may want to know the human angle on the story: for example, "What is it about his life story that lead him to take such a position?"  Background information is essential to understanding an issue. An isolated action is not best understood in a vacuum. Mention was made of the case of Katz v. United States saying, "Charles Katz doesn't qualify for an article." But if there were an article on Katz, then interested readers may gain a fuller understanding of that case also. Why "strip away" valuable information?

My second choice is to at least keep as a legal case: The case is an important case study for for international law: For example, it is written up in this section of Nuremberg Defense (Superior Orders), and is a helpful case study for Command responsibility.

Wikipedia is a work in progress - The history of Iraq War resisters is not nearly over yet, and is still being written. Plus Watada is not dead yet. It is possible that Watada may still play a part in that overall story. If so, then where would we record his future actions? Coming up on May 25, 2010, the Parliament of Canada will be debating the issue in the second reading of Bill C440, which deals precisely with Iraq War resisters. Withing the last few months, Ann Wright and Robin Long have both been in communication with people in Canada. Ann Wright (a colonel who opposes the Iraq War) visited Toronto on Mar 2, 2010. and Robin Long spoke to a meeting in Canada via a conference call on March 19, 2010.

On notablility: Watada was the first commissioned officer in the U.S. armed forces to refuse to deploy to Iraq.

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a lack of significant coverage about the individual. The case is one thing, he is something else. Your arguments about being a work in progress and not paper are really without merit. We still have notability standards and Watada truly doesn't meet them. Being the first commissioned officer isn't really notable, especially since he was so low ranking. His rank wouldn't qualify him for an article under WP:MILPEOPLE. Being "the first" is often not really notable. Overall, you have an argument based more on WP:ILIKEIT than on actual policy. We have two proposals as alternatives: Make the article about the case and not him or merge with the list if Iraq War resisters. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The size of List of Iraq War resisters or even a new article dedicated to legal arguments, issues and information of Iraq war resisters would not simply be the sum of the sizes of all the merged articles. Obviously significant paring down and tightening up would occur during a merger.  Consider Ben Griffin (soldier) and my edits to Iraq war resisters, Ive summed up the important aspects of Ben Griffin and provided two high quality sources in less then 1k.  If readers want to know more they can read the citations. The same is true of Watada, readers interested in the human aspects of his story can follow the links and read for themselves. Readers who want just the important details of his case dont have to wade through lengthy biographical details to get to the one thing he is known for - his refusal to deploy.  Bonewah (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with these dissenting arguments. The individual himself isn't notable, whil ethe case events are. Best to consolidate oll of the pertinent details of the legal cases in one list. For one thing, the so-called "human angle" wouldn't be encyclopedic, NPOV, and most likely OR. The "background info" can be adequetely covered on a legal case without giving a person's biography; giving excessive details treads into the territory of COATRACK and offer the opportunity for axe-grinders to subtley sway the article past neutral. The crystal ball/work in progress argument doesn't sway me either: we have no idea what may happen in the furture, and thus we have to judge the article based on its current state (if he becomes more relevant later, we can always split an article off later). And I'm with Niteshift on the "first" argument: not really significant.


 * Keep. An abundance of reliable, reputable, independent secondary sources discussion the subject in depth exist.  Others have written about the subject, and so, so do we.  BIO1E and even BLP1E are rules of thumb to help decide in the early stages, where there are just a couple of sources about a single story.  Here, the notability of the subject is "indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", to quote even from WP:BLP1E.  There is no content in the article that is not reliably sourced, or challenged on issues of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, except for a normal number of things which are really just fine details, as per any interesting subject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the coverage is mainly about the case, not the individual. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Biography vs. court case here.  bahamut0013  words deeds 17:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Niteshift36, well then you should be arguing for "move" or "rename", which is a variation on "keep". Note however that an awful lot of human subject articles (living and dead) are not personal biographies but are about a particular angle that is notable.  This is reasonable, and is certainly the practice in other encyclopedias.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, although renaming would be acceptable. The coverage runs from June 2006 to June 2010 and takes in a large number of reliable sources covering a range of slightly different events, so the WP:BLP1E argument isn't the strongest. Renaming to be about the event rather than the person could be reasonable, but there is absolutely no case for outright deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that making it about the case is the right idea. But as a bio, BLP1E really does apply, regardless of the span of coverage. None of the significant coverage is about the man, it's about his crime and the court case. Had the case not had delays, appeals etc, there would be no coverage of the man. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 7 May 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.