Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James E. Sabow (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.--Core desat  02:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

James E. Sabow (2nd nomination)
This article was previously nominated here and I closed that nomination was early for procedural reasons. Having a few days to review the article content, I don't think the subject meets WP:BIO. There is one non-trivial news story in the OC Weekly and he is mentioned in a Senate appropriations bill, but I don't see evidence that this individual meets our guidelines. Beyond that, there is an element of WP:OR here as it appears the primary editor on this article is trying to collect various sources in one place to advance or publicize the notion that the subject was murdered and acheive some sort of wikijustice. WP:NOT a memorial so I'm not sure this is the best usage of resources here. All this take together leads me to believe this article should be deleted.--Isotope23 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Regrettably there are thousands of routine murders. Anthony Appleyard 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Article does not satisfy WP:BIO, and I see no way the murder claims could be presented here without running afoul of WP:BLP anyway. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep : Very few of those "routine murders" are covered in an OC Weekly story titled "Former DA homicide chief says El Toro officer was murdered". I can understand every effort to impeach every material about this person... but in the 16 years since his death, a lot of people have considered him noteworthy.  http://google.com/search?q=James+Sabow JPatrickBedell 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This page exists to back up the creators claim that many living people, including a former Commandant of the Marine Corps, had the man murdered so the US Gov't could continue in the illegal drug trade. It is nothing but conspiracy and this individual does not rate a page because of it.  The article is riddled with original research and will continue to serve as a forum for this individual to make outrageous claims aginsts still living people.--Looper5920 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:BIO with published coverage, passes WP:V with lots of verifiable sources, at least some of which are reliable. Editors aren't required to be neutral - edits are.  I see no evidence the edits aren't neutral (even though it's clear the editor(s) are probably not). WilyD 19:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, where is the published coverage that meets WP:BIO? Other than the OC Weekly, I see blogs, reprints of USENET posts, and personal websites, but not coverage from WP:RS.--Isotope23 19:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The first source is not a blog, usenet post or the like. It's a publication from an unrelated company.  Sure, this isn't the kind of sourcing I'd want to take into a featured article nomination, but they bring it up to the minimum standard of WP:V and WP:RS, nevermind bringing him past the notability criterion of "multiple published coverages" of WP:BIO.  This is such an open and shut keep I'm frankly flabbergasted that there's even a debate, nevermind that so many arguments fly in the face of the facts. WilyD 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a blog... it is a PDF of the forensics report compiled by an outside consultant that they apparently made available on the web. personally I think it is a bit of a stretch to consider that towards WP:BIO... "multiple published coverages".  That is close to saying anyone who has had an article written about themselves and then dies and gets an obit would meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Obits are typically trivial or nearly trivial coverage, of ~1 paragraph, whereas the publication on his death from the Meixa Tech is 30 pages long - I would be hard pressed to see how that could be called Trivial. WilyD 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was trivial; I just fail to see how the fact that the forensics lab decided to post the PDF on their website meets the spirit of WP:BIO's "multiple published coverage". This isn't a word count issue.--Isotope23 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one instance of a independant published source in which he's the focus and which is nontrivial. The OC Weekly article is a second such item.  So there are multiple published coverages - I guessed you were deriding it as trivial because I can't imagine any other argument one could hope to plausibly make ... WilyD 19:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Difference of opinion then... I just don't consider a PDF of a forensics report posted on a website to be a "published coverage".--Isotope23 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you can make a plausible argument to that effect. Even simple dictionary definitions will show that it's published coverage.  Since I'm not sure how you can deny this (in that I can't guess any rational) I'm not sure what policy or guideline to point you to.  The essay WP:HORSE may be applicable, but it's a fairly inscrutable argument you're making, so I'm very likely wrong. WilyD 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your perceptive comments! WilyD, I thought the mention of WP:HORSE justified the image to the right. JPatrickBedell 23:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are interested, the argument is simply this: As I said before, I don't think a PDF of a forensic report to meet the intended spirit of WP:BIO's "multiple coverages". That is my opinion and interpretation.  [WP:BIO is a guideline & not a hard policy so it is open to interpretation.--Isotope23 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of those are reliable sources from what I can tell, so no, it does not meet WP:BIO, nor WP:V. Unless several reliable sources are found, this one's got to go. - Taxman Talk 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the only references are trivial.-MsHyde 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Two references added to Col. Sabow postmortem controversy from .gov domain - a finding of fact by a US District Court and US Congress budget language directing an investigation. JPatrickBedell 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Court proceedings are factual events that can be used to back up specific claims, but they do not establish the subject's notability.- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Third party reliable sources would be needed that show importance or impact of the case. And mac.com pages can't be used for references of any kind. - Taxman Talk 23:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; Wikipedia is not a forum to see that "justice" is done. The article creator has explicitly states that "I am determined to see that justice is served in the death of Colonel James Sabow. I apologize for the graphic content of some of my contributions. I am very disturbed by the fact that Col. Sabow's civilian superiors and their successors have been able to continue their narco-mercantilism."  This material is better suited to the editor's personal website. Also, see the User subpage User:JPatrickBedell/JDSabow evidence 2007 which is a gathering of information on the subject and appears to fall under WP:OR &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The subpage is part of the campaign for "justice", now on Miscellany for deletion. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, as a serious lacking of notability. He was a Marine Corps officer- not notable in its own right.  He was ruled a suicide- not notable in its own right. His suicide is questioned- not notable in its own right.  Add the three up and there is still nothing significant to contribute here.  Teke ( talk ) 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:BIO - The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person - since ths does exist, he is notable, and notability is not subjective. WilyD 15:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you make that enough reliable sources to support an article then perhaps you have something. I only see one source that's marginally reliable (Even that one's not a given) here, and that's simply not enough for an article. Really it's not that big a deal, we don't need to cover everything, just what has substantial reliable sources. - Taxman Talk 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Meixa Tech and the OC Weekly sources are reliable. WP:BIO says you need multiple such sources, and two such sources is thus the threshold. WilyD 19:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Meixa Tech should be considered a reliable source on its own. Do they put up every "article" they publish, or only ones that might convince a potential customer to use their services? Richard D. LeCour 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have some reason to believe they're an unreliable source? They apparently win American government contract(s)  and are apparently considered a reliable source by the National Center for Biotechnology Information.  So why do you call them unreliable? WilyD 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep There is one undoubtable reference, the one cited at "NCBI" above, which turns out to be an article in the peer-reviewed.  J Forensic Sci. 1991 Nov;36(6):1745-52.  Most murders do not get covered by pathology journals. That makes this one N, and the other sources add the context. I was about to vote delete until I stopped and looked at this article. DGG 06:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a saying that says, "Sometimes you have to call a spade a big F*&^ing shovel." Why do we give people with crazy conspiracy theories a voice on Wikipedia for fear that might we offend someone.  Read this guys userpage.  He is pretty clear on his intentions and what this article is here to accomplish.  Officiallty Colonel Sabow  committed suicide and no one on this site is in a position to contest the findings.... pretty simple.  So can I assume that any suicide that is contested rates it's own wikipedia article?  I mean anyone who complains loud enough will eventually get a mention somewhere.  How about keeping this in the trashcan where it belongs until something actually notable becomes of it.--Looper5920 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete- per Taxman. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. Local attention to murders / suicides does not make notability. Kusma (討論) 13:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Additional reference added to address published articles regarding activity at MCAS El Toro. JPatrickBedell 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment user already !voted "keep" above. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Stricken... please only add keep or delete' once per discussion. Thanks!--Isotope23 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Per many of the above, lack of sources. Medical claims pointing to xray images (like most wikipedia readers will be able to verify the claim by looking at the image). Also wikijustice stuff seems - wikipedia is not a soapbox --pgk 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete article exists solely to advance an agenda. The subject is not considered notable by anybody other than those promoting that agenda. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No real assertion of notability, even as a murder victim. Also, the article itself is a soapbox. -Will Beback · † · 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial references, invitation to soapboxing. --Mmx1 03:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete inappropriate content throughout article as it currently exists. JPatrickBedell 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * would anyone like to follow the rules? Very few homicides are interesting enough forensically to get a full published peer-reviewed paper about them, and that is N. It & the press coverage are two RS, one of which is of national significance. This meets the rules. DGG 08:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't have rules. What you are referring to is a guideline which means it is subject to interpretation.--Isotope23 01:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)--Isotope23 01:44, 12 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.