Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew L. Golsteyn


 * 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 no consensus. The disagreement centers on whether WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E apply. Those in favor argue that this is about a not-yet-convicted low-profile individual known only for one event. The others argue that the length and degree of media coverage the case has received makes these policies inapplicable. This is a matter of editorial judgment which I cannot decide by fiat, and there are valid arguments on both sides. The article is therefore kept by default for lack of consensus to delete it.  Sandstein  15:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Mathew L. Golsteyn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article violates WP:BLP as its subject does not meet WP:ONEEVENT. The alleged killing is likely notable, but the person is not independently notable. The creator of this article sought feedback on the article at User talk:Nick-D and WP:BLPN. I and most of the other editors who commented judged that the article should not be presented as a biography due to the WP:ONEVENT issues. Operation Moshtarak was suggested as a suitable article to cover the incident in. Geo Swan has ignored this feedback, and is now edit warring with an IP account who is seeking to reduce the article to a stub. As such, I think it's time for a more formal process. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

(as people who commented at BLPN or have also contributed to the article). Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - all the coverage is based around the murder, of which he has not been convicted, so this is a WP:BLPCRIME matter. No sign that he was well-known before this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , you write "all the coverage is based around the murder". There is a firehouse phenomenon, and the earlier significant coverage of Golsteyn is being drowned out by the flood of coverage due to the POTUS's controversial defence of him.  If we look more carefully how many references from before the charges were laid would you require, for you to acknowledge that he was well-known, prior to the recent charges and POTUS tweet?  As to your comment on Golsteyn not being convicted yet...  No, the Army didn't try to convict him, when his original confession during his CIA job interview was passed on to them.  Instead they conducted an "administrative" inquiry.  I have never been in the military, but it is my understanding that the usual "administrative" inquiry last hours, or even less.  It is my understanding that a GI who committed a very minor infraction, like being late for duty, smoking in a non-smoking zone, or equivalent, who is genuinely sorry, is allowed to verbally acknowledge his guilt, and be given his punishment, verbally, so the personnel record of an otherwise good soldier is kept clean, with no records of a court martial.   The 2011-2014 Golsteyn inquiry was totally different.  Since it triggered surveillance of individuals like Swenson, a friend he hadn't seen since 2009, how much do you think it cost?  They sent forensic experts to the camp where the killing took place to search for DNA samples from all the camp's burn pits.  No, Golsteyn wasn't convicted, at an actual trial.  He wasn't given an actual trial.  But don't you think a multi-year inquiry, that consumed considerable personnel hours, and who knows how many millions of dollars, is close enough to a conviction that there is no purpose to treat reports that he killed the suspect outside the rules of engagement as mere unsupported allegations?  I have never been in the military, but I have read of GIs who try to demand a court martial, so they can clear their name, after they have fallen under suspicion, or have been, as in Golsteyn's case, subjected to administrative procedures that state he or she engaged in questionable behavior. It is my understanding that, prior to the career-ending letter of reprimand being put in his personnel file, Golsteyn was given a preliminary draft of that letter of reprimand.  It is my understanding that a GI has a window of time to draft a rebuttal to the career-ending letter of reprimand.  It is my understanding that, when a GI submits their rebuttal, a panel considers it, and, if their rebuttal is considered convincing, the letter of reprimand is not put in the personnel file, after all.  So far as I am aware, Golsteyn did not defend himself with a rebutal.  If he did, it was not seen as convincing, as he does have the career ending letter of rebutal in his file.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "But don't you think a multi-year inquiry, that consumed considerable personnel hours, and who knows how many millions of dollars, is close enough to a conviction that there is no purpose to treat reports that he killed the suspect outside the rules of engagement as mere unsupported allegations?" No, I don't think an investigation is the same as a conviction. Thanks for asking. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I never suggested that the very extensive inquiry Golsteyn was the same as a conviction. Replying as if I had suggested is a strawman argument, a rhetorical technique frowned on by our policies and guidelines.  I already transcribed the four minute clip from FOX news in the BLPN discussion, and now I will place it on WT:Articles for deletion/Mathew L. Golsteyn.  I suggested he has admitted the killing so openly that it is not necessary to treat the killing as a mere allegation.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't ask people questions you don't want answered, and don't pretend that your question wasn't asking for a degree of parallel between the two things. Yes, I know you want to set specific hoops for me to jump through. No, I am not going to leap through your hoops. Meanwhile, I've just called for that big copyright-violating transcription of yours to be speedily deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing more to say. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, leave redirect or otherwise Merge and redirect. A standalone page on this person is really not appropriate per BLPCRIME, even though all sourcing is generally reliable, and otherwise BOP acceptable. Should there be a conviction, then a standalone might be appropriate, though it would be better to have the article topic on the event than the person. --M asem (t) 04:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- First, I think a close examination of the references show that Golsteyn is connected to multiple topics, so BLP1E doesn't apply. Even if it were to apply, when an individual's role is significant, BLP1E is not a bar to maintaining a standalone article on them.
 * Golsteyn is related to the following topics: Silver Star, Duncan Hunter, Donald_Trump_on_social_media, Will Swenson, Bing West. When a topic is closely related to multiple other topics we cover, any suggestion that that richly related topic should be covered in a subsection of one of those topics will always be highly problematic.  If our coverage of Golsteyn were to be shoehorned into Operation Moshtarak those who maintain that article would rightly complain that coverage of how Golsteyn's online's comments on Swenson triggered an intruvise investigation into Swenson, was off-topic in Operation Moshtarak.  Swenson did not serve in Operation Moshtarak, he served several provinces away, in Kunar.  Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Bing West cited Golsteyn opinions in several publications.  Also off-topic in Operation Moshtarak.  Congressional Representative Duncan Hunter, a veteran himself, lobbied strongly for Golsteyn, claiming he was being unfairly abused by Army brass -- also off-topic for Operation Moshtarak.  Silver Stars aren't that rare.  But having one's medal clawed back is rare, rare and notable.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * None of the connected topics are for anything outside of the fallout of what happened in the Operation. It still remains BLP1E, and with BLPCRIME, advocates we should 1) not have a standalone article on Golstyen, and 2) do not give undue coverage of Golstyen prior to any type ofconviction. --M asem (t) 05:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of THREE conditions is met" Okay, you disagree with me as to whether he meets the first condition.  Can you really defend implying that Golsteyn meets the 2nd condition, the "low profile individual" condition?  After Golsteyn voluntarily agreed to be interviewed on Fox News TV can you really claim he is a "low profile individual"?  Nor does he meet the third condition, "If the event is not significant, or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented, we usually ignore them..."  Do you think you can defend your implied claim that Golsteyn's role was not significant?  Let's be clear.  War is war.  When a soldier on the winning side, may have committed a questionable killing, they are likely to escape scrutiny for it.  While most US GIs were never involved in a killing that could be considered questionable, there are individuals out there who were never subjected to serious scrutiny, or maybe any scrutiny whatsoever, for various reasons.  No one is suggesting we follow up on vague rumors of those questionable killings.  I certainly am not suggesting we follow up on vague rumors, because I know the BLP concerns you seem to be arguing protect Golsteyn's reputation do protect those individuals.  But anyone who spends a minute googling Golsteyn, and looking at the results, should acknowledge that there is no way he meets the third condition of BLP1E.   While war is war, and lots of soldiers have escaped serious scrutiny for a role in killings that could be seen as questionable, Golsteyn is not one of them.  He had a three year inquiry into his role from 2011 to 2014.  That 2011-2014 inquiry was well documented, at that time.
 * You refer to BLPCRIME, which starts "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures..." and I repeat, after choosing to be interviewed on nation-wide TV, why would you claim or imply Golsteyn is not a public figure?
 * You repeat the claim that the related topics are part of "the fallout" from Operation Moshtarak. And I ask you, again, to explain how Golsteyn's friendship with With Will Swenson is related to Operation Moshtarak, when Swenson was serving several provinces away.  I bought Bing West's book, but haven't had a chance to incorporate it into the article.  West devotes most of two chapters to the time he was embedded with Golsteyn's unit, and refers to him, by name, almost one hundred times.  West is not a nobody, using a vanity publisher.  He is a former senior Pentagon official.  His book can't be ignored, why wouldn't his coverage of Golsteyn measure up to our requirement for detailed "significant coverage"?  Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteering to be interviewed on national TV as to discuss one's potentially criminal past event does not make one a public figure. I'd expect a public figure to be one frequently referred to for a variety of reasons (eg like a Congressperson, leading generals of the armed forces, etc.) We should be asking the need for such an article well after the court process to determine how much weight to give this, which may be a simple summary in the Operation article, or may require a more detailed article on the event. But still, it is the event that is potentially notable, not the person per BLPCRIME. --M asem (t) 21:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * you are the one who cited BLP. But doesn't define "public figure", but it does point to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE which points to WP:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual which has a subsection Characteristics_of_high-_versus_low-profile_figures. It says a high-profile individual "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a.  "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator."  Okay, Golsteyn did that.  You incorrectly wrote, above, that Golsteyn was interviewed to discuss his "potentially criminal past".  Actually, Golsteyn was interviewed as an expert on the combat experience.  No offense, but I suggest we stick with the wikidocument, OK?  Geo Swan (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will still disagree that what interviews Golsteyn had done suddenly makes him a public figure (he wasn't on as a media personality, a self-described expert, or a notable commentator). And BLP stresses to take the most conservative middle-ground approach with people only accused but not found guilty of crimes. --M asem  (t) 23:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I direct your attention to "During a special edition of Baier’s show entitled “How We Fight,” Golsteyn gave his description of the circumstances surrounding the killing, telling Baier..." If you look at the caption to that video clip, it says "BATTLEFIELD STORIES: Troops recall deadly operation in Afghanistan"  So, Golsteyn was one of several individuals Baier interviewed, as experts, on the combat experience.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That was being interviewed as a eyewitness/participant, but not as an expert. --M asem (t) 18:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Repurpose to an article on the event/Keep If the event is notable, then why not re-purpose the article? There's no way to cover the notable aspects of the case (including parts about Trump reviewing it and so on) within the Operation Moshtarak article without it being WP:UNDUE for it - the article is about the operation, not about one alleged killing within it - so it doesn't make any sense to merge there; one really cannot much more to what is already there in the operation article. With national (Washington Post etc) coverage from as far back as 2015 to even more substantial coverage in 2018, the event is very clearly notable enough for a stand-alone article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I was the IP that originally stubbed this article. It is classic BLP1E. It's not barely a 1E event that hinges on whether a killing during combat is a crime or it wouldn't even be an event. If the killing becomes notable, it can be covered in Operation Moshtarak. It's a news event right now but it has no lasting quality about it that makes this individual notable outside the event. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * IP, the whole premise of your comment, and your two informationectomies is flawed, as you refer "killing in combat". You are correct that "killing in combat" is not a crime.  Countries that sign the Geneva Conventions all agree that when their soldiers kill enemy fighters, in actual combat, it is not a crime.  Even killing a civilian whom your soldier honestly thought was an enemy fighter, is not a crime, in combat.   Killing prisoners is another matter.  The man whom Golsteyn has openly admitted killing had already been captured, disarmed, interrogated.  Killing prisoners is almost always a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and of Army Regulation 190-8.  If prisoners are rioting, or don't halt when ordered, when trying to escape, deadly force would be authorized.   If you read the article more closely, read the available references more closely, you would have seen that Golsteyn did not kill him, "in combat".  You will see that RS like the Washington Post and the New York Times quoted Golsteyn acknowledging the killing was outside the rules of engagement he was supposed to follow.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Those were simply facts I stated. Whether he was in custody when he was killed is disputed. What is not disputed is that he was killed and the timing was during combat operations. Whether it was crime has not been established nor has it been established who killed him. There are individuals that can be killed on sight per the ROE and is how the whole drone program works. Whether YOU think it is a crime is not relevant. Wikipedia does not create BLPs simply to smear the reputation of a otherwise non-notable person. Even if he is convicted it will still be a single event tht he is notable for and not warranting an article. With rare exception we don't create BLPs about a murder of a non-notable person by a non-notable person. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete at present. This a clearly a notable event, and WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E encourage us to cover the event rather than the non-notable person. I think we often fall into a rut of assuming we must either write or delete a biography in these cases. The problem currently is that this effectively is WP:BLPCRIME case, and we normally are cautious about covering prior to criminal liability being established. I am not persuaded that the interview on Fox made the subject a public figure given the subject's low public profile in the years between the incident and the current rash of coverage. If he is not a public figure, BLPCRIME suggests we should not be covering the allegations. Let's wait and see if there's a trial, and whether Trump intervenes. If either occurs, the additional coverage will clarify whether there's true notability here for a biography. And in the event of a conviction, we certainly could write about the trial. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. My opinion is that the killing should be covered in Operation Moshtarak and the Fox interview/Trump tweet/reopening of the investigation should be covered in Donald_Trump_on_social_media. If Golsteyn is convicted or it's clearly shown that he is the person who killed the "bomb-maker" (as the current revision calls it), then an article covering the crime should be created. That article would cover what effect, if any, Trump's input had. I am not persuaded that Golsteyn's televised "yes" is a reliable confession, and I'm definitely not convinced by the above argument based on the subject's speculated failure to rebut the "career-ending letter of reprimand" that was the product of the inquiry.--Rajulbat (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC).
 * Delete What a ridiculous waste of everyone's time. Also, I wanted to highlight that Geo Swan has gamed the system to get the page protected. They have misrepresented this issue and it appears the protecting admin does not care about BLP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swarm#Mathew_L._Golsteyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.231.176 (talk • contribs) — 104.249.231.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep or move to an event article I don't see any of the suggested places to put this as a good target--there is just too much on this particular topic.  And that is often a good sign that we need a separate article.  But at the same time, I'm not thrilled with having a bio on this person.  I think we are past "one event," even though there is one event that triggered all this.  And this person isn't exactly low profile.  Now that said, I'm loath to have an article on someone who is merely accused of a crime.  So I think an event article would be much (much) better. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: meets WP:NCRIME and not a WP:BLP1E situation. This is not a low-profile individual by this point. The investigation into Golsteyn has been covered in 2015, 2016 and 2018; meeting WP:SUSTAINED. See for example: 2015: Inside the stunning fall and war-crimes investigation of an Army Green Beret war hero, Washington Post (added); 2016: Army reopens probe into suspected bombmaker’s death after Special Forces soldier’s Fox News interview, Washington Post; 2018: Former Special Forces soldier, once lauded as a hero, faces murder charge, Washington Post. The nature of the alleged crime is highly unusual; it's rare that US personnel are charged with war crimes, hence the international interest in the subject matter. There's no other article about this crime and the investigation is tied to one person -- the subject of this article. So it's reasonable to have a stand-alone page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The crime being investigated is a RoE violation and the charge is murder. It is not a "war crime" since the crime is objectively against the rules of war but rather the rules of engagement for that particular combatant. RoE violations and killings are investigated all the time and charges are not uncommon. Convictions are rare but there has not been a conviction in this case. Also, it is a single event. The event is notable as stated elsewhere, the person is not. If he is convicted, it would be rare enough to warrant a biography that would inevitably contain trial information. This is the case for Clint Lorance which focuses mainly on the trial and sentence. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP, are you seriously denying that a murder of an unarmed prisoner is a war crime? Please be more subtle about it. For your benefit, I added a 2015 source discussing such. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Coffman are seriously accusing him of committing a crime he has not been accused of? Your 2015 source says a lot of things that never came to pass including a cover up and war crimes. If you don't know the difference in the criminal charges being alleged (hint: "war crime" is not one on his charge sheet) maybe you should sit this one out. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep but repurpose to article on the event. Even those !voting delete agree that the event itself is notable, the only decision to make here is whether it should be a stand-alone article or covered as part of another article.  Given the coverage, I would say that the former is appropriate.  Redirect the BLP to that article. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have no problem with retitling the article along the lines Black Kite seems to be suggesting. But the main event Goldsteyn is notable for - the alleged killing - is separate from Operation Moshtarak, so that is not really a suitable article to treat the incident in (and even if it were, that would require a merge, not deletion).  But I don't have a problem with leaving the article as is either, per Geo Swan's and  K.e.coffman's arguments. Rlendog (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:BLPCRIME, non-notable individual, article should have never been created in the first place.— Isaidnoway (talk)  10:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this WP:BLP1E, but a smerge/redirect may be appropriate if the news incident re pardons continues. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep ditto: meets WP:NCRIME and not a WP:BLP1E situation. This is not a low-profile individual by this point. The investigation into Golsteyn has been covered in 2015, 2016 and 2018; meeting WP:SUSTAINED. Bachcell (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, but convert to event page. Clearly the event is notable, and the news coverage meets WP:GNG, which is not something that even delete !voters seem to dispute. Per Geo Swan and K.e.coffman, a very strong case could be made that this does not meet the non-inclusion criteria at NCRIME and BLP1E given the current high profile and public nature of the incident and the multiple events (e.g. Fox News interview, charges, Trump tweet, etc.) that stemmed from the original one. However, since we do not have an article about the event, I think it's preferable to convert this to an event page, and let the creation of a seperate page on the individual be decided on the talk page. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:10, 4 January 2019 (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.