Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Patrick Dwyer


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Patrick Dwyer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nothing against this person or their contributions but this appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E even with citations to significant coverage in reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 02:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 02:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added sources as EL's and formatted the references. Really, it's two events, not one, the photo and then his death. Furthermore, the last two EL's I added talk about his PTSD, not either of the two events. Silver  seren C 02:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in life and in death. Lord Jimbo (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable, so BIO1E doen't even apply. Merely being the subject of a photograph doesn't assert notability, especially one with only modest noteriety at best. What little prose there is ins't partucularly NPOV either, but that would be an easy fix. I'm not sure I buy that a few passing mentions as an example of PTSD would assert notability either... I could see the refs being transferred to that article though.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly is he non-notable? He has stories about him that span five years of coverage. It is obviously outside of BLP1E and the articles themselves are almost entirely about him. That seems to scream notability to me. Silver  seren C 05:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mere coverage doesn't equate notability. I have PTSD, but I don't rate an article. As a military person, there is nothing that distinguishes him past the unfortunate thousands of others who have suffered and ended thier own lives. Perhaps there is some notability as an example of a medical/mental disorder, but not enough to rate an entire biography. And who said anything about BLP? You have to be living to qualify for that.  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant BIO1E. What distinguishes him beyond those others is that he is the face of the Iraq war and also that he killed himself in a rather dramatic way. Those two, combined with the information about his PTSD, should be enough to establish notability. Silver  seren C 17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be suprised just how many servicemembers have done one, the other, or both. His story is just not any more different or unique to put him above that of his peers that have had the same tragic end.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: a very sad story but unfortunately I do not see how it is more notable than any other veteran suffering from service-related injuries/illnesses. I salute this young man's sacrifice, but I do not believe that our current policies (WP:GNG and WP:MILPEOPLE) are satisfied in this case. A mention of the subject in a related article, however, might be appropriate so long as it did not breach WP:UNDUE. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He has articles that are entirely about him, how does that not meet coverage? Silver  seren C 05:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, media coverage doesn't equate to notability.  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, yes it does. WP:MILPEOPLE still says "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." This has been established, easily. As for WP:GNG, the sources are "significant coverage", they are "reliable", they are "secondary sources", they are "independent of the subject", and we are making the "presumption" right now. He meets the criteria for notability because he is the main subject of multiple, non-trivial, major news sources. That is clearly enough to establish notability. Silver  seren C 17:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a requirement, not a correlation, for notability.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BIO and WP:GNG are general guidelines. We should look to more specific guidelines such as WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:PROF and in this case, WP:MILPEOPLE where available.  They are there for a reason.--RadioFan (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And, as I said just above, he still meets the general guideline for WP:MILPEOPLE. Besides, you should only be using that if the coverage of him was primarily for his feats as a military officer, which they are not. He should be assessed according to WP:BIO, not from a military standard. Silver  seren C 19:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make much sense to me. If he wasn't military, nobody would be able to make an even slightly plausible argument to notability. It's that aspect of his suicide that is making this a divided discussion.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.