Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Schmidt (Air National Guard)


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry Schmidt (Air National Guard)
Notable event, yes, but I question the notability of this individual. Furthermore, this seems like an attack piece rather than an encyclopedia article. kingboyk 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - the two external references show that this individual has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources, which establishes notability per WP:BIO (although more sources are ideally needed). I'm also not comfortable with the description of any page which presents negative coverage of an individual as an "attack page" (see my comments at Articles for deletion/Amir Massoud Tofangsazan (2nd nomination)). Although this article may need to be NPOV'd, any article which cites sources and consists of verifiable fact is, ipso facto, not an attack page. CSD G10 is designed to provide a quick way of removing libellous and patently untrue attacks (e.g. "John Q. Doe is an imbecile") and doesn't apply to cases like this.  Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would prefer to merge this and the associated articles Marc Léger, Ainsworth Dyer, Richard Green (soldier), Nathan Lloyd Smith, William Umbach, and even arguably Bruce Carlson (General) and Charles Gittins to Tarnak Farm incident (should be Farsm). That said, most of this article should probably be excised as it is (or should be) present at the latter article. Weak keep and cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Googled and found over 9000 hits for this individual, including several stories inthe New York Times of which I added 2. These multiple reliable and independent sources support notability and verifiability of this individuals notability springing from what was a much discussed international incident of friendly fire during a war. Any facts in the article must be well sourced, such as the results of military proceedings. A good article consistent with Wikipolicies on coverage of living persons is quite possible. As for the article being an attac on the officer, see Res ipsa loquitur. That said, I would not object to a merger of the several articles into one well written article on the incident, just as the Panay incident does not have articles for all the attackers and attacked in that peacetime attack. Inkpaduta 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, weak mostly due to the lack of sources, references and citations. Article needs work to be up to par Alf Photoman  00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is adequately sourced and seems fair. --Eastmain 01:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep He along with Umbach are the principle parties to this event, and so the article is justified. It makes sense to merge articles on the victims into the main article, but the killers have a claim to notoriety. This is not BLP, as the case was adjudicated. DGG 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources added and the already existing sources that establish notability. As for being an "attack page", the article is actually very fair in its presentation of the material (presenting both accusations against the individual and his defence of his action).  -- Black Falcon 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, though I'd support merging it as well, if only to make it easier for the casual reader hoping to learn about the incident. - Mocko13 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep/Cleanup/Merge? Certainly is notable event but I share the nominator's reservations about the tone of the page. Perhaps merge this and all similar into something like "People involved in friendly fire incidents during the War on Terror" or suchlike. A1octopus 15:46, 28 February 2007 (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.