Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Wooten (trooper)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike Wooten (trooper)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (|View AfD) (View log)

I am the author of this page. I copied over the background of Mike Wooten in the expectation that the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal article was becoming too filled with information, that it had to be split into a 2nd subarticle. Now that significant edits have been made to the original article, that issue is no longer evident. All information about Wooten is sufficient as it pertains to the investigation, and by that measure, there is plenty of "fat" to trim from this article as well, plus the fact that this article has become a coatrack, now that the original is in working order again. But in doing so, it would become a clone of the text in the original article. The information in Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal is able to cover everything without the need of summary. Duuude007 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal article, which has a lot of detail about Wooten, is already at 66kb.  Furthermore, it will continue to grow for some time, as there are new developments practically every day.  Just yesterday, some legislators filed a lawsuit to stop the investigation, and the state Attorney General said that state employees would not testify in response to subpoenas.  These are just the latest procedural developments; we can expect further substantive revelations, as well.  As the article grows, it will become even more important for the extensive detail about Wooten to be moved to the Wooten bio article, with only a summary left behind.  Let's keep the separate Wooten article at least until the situation stabilizes, when we could consider consolidation. JamesMLane t c 16:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * merge & redirect  to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. See WP:ONEEVENT. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I second this, with a redirect . edit: Nevermind, I just saw the disambig page. --Soyweiser (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there ever was a WP:BLP1E, this is it. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (leaving a redirect to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal) per nominator (article is redundant) and others (one-event BLP). -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Leave redirect, this article is an attempt to WP:COAT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs)
 * Hey now (in response Arzel's accusation), I didn't create it as an attempt to make a coatrack. But I did submit it for deletion because I agree that is what it has become. Duuude007 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * delete - per A.B. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect. Delete per previous BLP1E arguments. The redirect is unnecessary since the Mike Wooten disambiguation links directly to the dismissal article, providing more information than "Mike Wooten (trooper)". I skimmed the history of the main article since this subarticle's creation, and I didn't see any copying back that would create GFDL concerns. Flatscan (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP1E suggests, Cover the event, not the person. The overall event (Monegan's dismissal) is notable and has its own article. Wooten, his career, the investigation into his conduct, and his suspension in 2006 are not independently notable. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * you mention no redirect, but I would like to note that Walt Monegan, the other minor name on the same page, also has a redirect that goes to the page. If this one has no redirect, then that one ought to be removed too under your logic. I would support whichever decision is consistent between both of them. Duuude007 (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Walt Monegan has his own article. What Flatscan is saying is that the article Mike Wooten (without the parentheical) is a disamb page, which identifies the trooper (as distinguished from the ball player) and links to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Thus, no redirect is needed. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Kelly  hi! 04:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as the creator of the page has requested it and has given compelling reasons for doing so, even without having to consider BLP. 23skidoo (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per 23skidoo and Kelly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but trim it to it's bare essentials. Since much of the info is already in the Troopergate article it is redundant here. But to delete it because he's just famous for one thing, is inconsistent. Bob Beamon was also basically notable for just one thing, all his subsequent fame came from that one jump, we wouldn't have known about his Black Power positions hadn't he made that jump. Yet, I don't see calls for deleting his entry. Plus, Mike Wooten, (or if you will, the Mike Wooten case,) will affect much more people than Beamon, so to delete him, would go against the notable policy. Keep and trim, and move appropriate info to the Troopergate article.--CrashTestSmartie (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all, and WP:BLP1E.  Grsz  talk  15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep BLP1E does not apply given that his career is now a national issue. Weak keep only, because I'm skeptical about breaking down each of her publicized deeds into separate articles.  In any case there is a problem with excessive detail--The article needs editing. DGG (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To add, his career is no longer merely a national issue, it's international now. Therefor I agree, that BLP1E does not apply. --CrashTestSmartie (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with its current separate state as a WP:COAT is also the fact that it could gain numerous inaccuracies that aren't properly maintained, as the source article receives every day. There are plenty of those even now, if I compare the fixes that have been made to the source article. Who will commit to keeping this WP:BLP article WP:NPOV, and judge the right time to move over content from the original article, summarizing it there? That is a massively daunting task. If noone in this conversation is willing to step up to that, I urge "keep" voters to reconsider whether this article will really do what it was intended to do: tell the facts accurately as an encyclopedia. Duuude007 (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Or at the very least change the article to be about the controversy over his firing, as it is worthy of an article. Merge with redirect as this remains an important topic.  K u k i ni  háblame aquí 00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, did you read the nominator's reason for deletion? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.190.207 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep — Individual is notable under the biography guidelines as I read them, and most of the arguments for deletion seem to be regarding items that can be fixed by an editor, such as duplication of material and insufficient coverage of other aspects of his life. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The information is important and should remain easily accessible. The Alaska Public Safety Comissioner Dismissal (APSCD) article has at least two layers: the underlying issues surrounding mr. Mike Wooten, and the processes surrounding mr. Walt Monegan. Regarding the article maintenance problems, I suggest that the APSCD article should concentrate on the latter layer, and refer to the Mike Wooten article for the first layer. I believe the intelligent reader will want to know if there is any real substance to the allegations against Mike Wooten, before judging the second layer. Due to the size of the text, it is much easier to estimate said substance based on a dedicated article. PerezTerron (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep STOP DELETING PAGES ON WIKIPEDIA! IF THERE IS DUPLICATION, REMOVE IT! IMPROVE NOT DESTROY! Chendy (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats the point, the whole article is inherently a duplicate of the source. it should be removed in its entireity, and at most have a redirect go back to the source. Duuude007 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) weak keep per DGG. Issues that have gotten international coverage are hard to claim there is a BLP1E issue. Moreover, BLP1E is intended by and large for flash-in-the-pan style things, not serious corruption scandals. Finally, if one of our underlying ideas behind BLP is "do no harm" then that isn't an issue here. Given the vast amount of continuing coverage there's no way a Wikipedia article influences that at all. However, even given all that, I don't think I'll complain loudly if this is redirected to Troopergate which has most of this material anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Investigation is heating up and ongoing, so there is interest in Wooten. Wikipedia isn't paper. We66er (talk) 05:29, 23 September 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.