Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iraq War resisters (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. The consensus was very clear that this is an appropriate list that meets Wikipedia policies as a list. However, there are valid BLP concerns about some of the names where the sourcing is absent or inadequate. These should be removed as a post-AFD editorial action and, in consequence, I am marking the page for cleanup. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Iraq War resisters
Article had a badly formed AFD in December; resubmitting for deletion with a proper AFD. List fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTABILITY, being a war refusenik does not in itself establish anything particularly noteworthy. Most references cited are small advocacy websites and other websites which fail WP:RS, and many entries are not sourced at all. Delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC) In either case, this list is unfair and some of these people are not well-known. — OranL (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Based on the number of blue-linked names, this seems to be a useful list. It would possibly warrant removal of the names without their own articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per JeremyMcCracken, although some of the blue links may wind up here for notability issues. Definitely copy the notable ones into the "Opposition from Soldiers" section of "Opposition to the Iraq War," though.  (A couple of them are already there.)   Anturiaethwr  Talk  12:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was thinking, but best to worry about those articles first. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's not an indiscriminate list, and there are a number of blue-links on it. WP:BLP1E is a reason to Keep here, not to delete; it plainly cites these people in the context of an event.  Nom's arguments seem more properly aimed at the people cited in the list, but that's either a content dispute (and so inappropriate for AfD) or a dispute as to individual notability, in which case I'm sure nom can file AfDs on the names included therein, as the situations warrant.    RGTraynor  14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually no, what I dispute is not some of the content, but that such a list of names is even appropriate for Wikipedia at all. None of the names listed would be notable on its own merits, unless there is some reason they can assert notability such as they were party to a precedent-setting District Court or Supreme Court case, which as far as I know none of them is.  There is even less reason to have a list than there is to have individual articles on the one or two who could conceivably be notable enough to merit articles.  I do have to say I am surprised this is (so far) running in the keep direction; if this article is kept though a good case could be made to immediately remove all the unsourced and poorly sourced entries on BLP grounds, and nominate most of the blue links individually for deletion on the grounds of non-notability, which would make keeping this list a moot point.  KleenupKrew (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is as may be, although I agree that unsourced names should be removed. This isn't the venue, though, to argue as to the inherent appropriateness of lists on Wikipedia.    RGTraynor  22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the list is notable. the unsourced names need to be explicitly mentioned in sources cited (I didn't do gophering).  The linked names are (as far as I can tell) notable for reasons of their resistance and the coverage related to it.  But perhaps the list needs a disclaimer that this includes only those who have declared resistance to the war and been publicized.  It does not include officers resigning their commission, ROTC cadets refusing to take a commission, enlisted members deserting, and other forms of objection. Protonk (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists (notable and verifiable) and also due to lack of valid reasons to delete. Sincrely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable valid list.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete . By being part of Wikipedia, this suggests that the list of people is notable. If these people are notable for objecting to the Iraq war by leaving the country, then according to WP:NPOV, there should be a similar list of people who have not objected to the Iraq war and have been deployed to Iraq with the coalition forces. Since no such list can reasonably be added to Wikipedia, in the interest of neutrality, the list should be deleted after ensuring that each person's article has cited information that they have resisted the Iraq war by moving from the country, etc. If there are significant instances of persons that have resisted and received notable media coverage, then those instances should be documented in an article about Iraq war resistance.
 * Per the GFDL, we cannot "merge and delete." Rather, we merge and redirect without deletion.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. NPOV does not mean equal time.  that is a fallacy that is perpetuated by news organizations (and until the late 1980's the FCC).  NPOV means that facts are represented in a neutral manner that does not give undue weight to one position.  It is innacurate and cynical to suggest that we have a list of people who did not actively resist the war as a counterweight.  First, this list includes only those who would have otherwise been compelled to act in the war and refused to do so publicly.  So, as I said in my post above, it does not include those who took other duty, refused a commission, refused to enlist, or deserted without a publicly stated cause.  Second, the vast majority of Americans did not actively resist the war in iraq--this comes from the fact that the overwhelming majority were not called to serve and from the fact that most people prefer the status quo to rocking the boat.  It would, in fact, offer too much credence to the pro-war view if we had a list of ~290 million americans who did not publicly refuse to serve in the Iraq war.  Such a list would be inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not suggest that there should be a list of non-objectors, and I apologize if it sounded like that. I was trying to make the point that such a list, as you seem to agree, would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. I would suppose that the list should remain, but it needs to be made more clear that it is not an article, but is merely a substitute for a category. As long as this list does not become an article, then it would be neutral. What needs to happen to make this look more like a list would be to put the text of the "Legal" section into an ambox, so that people glancing at the list would not think it was an article, and therefore it shouldn't come into their minds that this list is in any way biased. I will head over to the page right now to add this. — OranL (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2008 (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.