Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanta ee


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nanta ee

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

Nom - The subject of this article has repeatedly attempted to add himself to numerous subject-related articles over the past year (see: Apache and Purple Heart for examples). He has now written an article about himself. Given the degree of effort he put into the article, I thought it important to bring this up on AfD. The problem with the article (aside from conflict of interest/self-promotion), is the fact that most of the biographical parts aren't referenced, and the biographical parts that are referenced, are sourced to a single non-profit organization's website. Yes, the guy exists. Yes, he was a combat photographer - but so are hundreds of other military combat photographers from Iraq and Afghanistan who have served over that last six to eight years. So what? The bottom line here is that his military decorations do not rate an article, and while he has some photo credits, he has no photojournalism awards to show for his work (the definition of notability for a photojournalist), nor does he have sufficient (any?) articles written about him in the national press. Basically, he's another guy with a resume trying to promote himself via Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

''keep - Nanta ee is the only know war chief currently on U.S. military active duty and has served in numerous wars. Also their are only two living war chiefs alive today, and he is one of them - the other is Joe Medicine Crow. Nanta ee or Johancharles Van Boers can be found all over the web like most military Combat Camera photographers and he has placed in numerous photo/video/graphic contest. Most notable are MILPHOG 2004 (HM in the Portfolio Category), MILVID 1998 (2nd Place in Combat Camera Category), and MILGRAGH 2004 (3rd and HM in the Fine Arts Category); just like Russell Klika. I am still gathering information on this person, but bottom line he is a War Chief, not many Native American Soldiers have earned that title since Joe Medicine Crow - he is the only one that I know of. A lot of the information came from a book called "Warriors in Uniform," a National Geographic book and some additional information from the Native American museum; from that information and from the internet I was able to build upon that. As far as self-promoting - there is no personal website selling his art work, images or anything of that nature. Other people have made money off his work, due to the fact that he is a military photgrapher - all his combat images are public domain. His combat imagery can be found all over Wikipedia, and many other website - but not as "Nanta ee", but as "Johancharles Van Boers." If it was a self promotional page then it would be "Johancharles Van Boers" the "Combat Photographer" and not "Nanta ee". His images have been on the cover of top mags like Newsweek (Nov 2004) and Soldier of Fortune (Mar 2005) to name a few. His images have been have been picked up by the Washington Post, USA today, and many others different media outlets. Also his images have been used on books covers too - for example "Never Quit the Fight" by Ralp Peters. Lastly his work has inspired fine artist to pull from his images to create their works. So I thought it was worth mentioning his work as a combat photogrpaher. As far as self-promoting - there is no personal website, if there was one; then I would have to agree with you about the self-pomotional thing. I have contacted him via email and have asked him for information, but he is a little slow in getting it to me due to his medical issues - hence the three purple hearts he earned. I would ask that you assist in improve it or at least give it sometime before it you considered it for deletion. Again the main thing is he is a War Chief - the focus is not him being a combat photographer. In my closing request - I had asked him early on to sign up and be apart of building this page as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.144.68 (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC) — 173.55.144.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Crow is not a precedent--he has received both the Presidential Medal of Freedom,  & The Congressional Gold medal.  Otherwise, compare the two careers yourself. And compare the articles. I know we're not supposed to be influed by the quality,  since it can be fixed, but the impression is unfortunate. That  you think the article will be improved by an account from the subject, indicates a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. As for being a War Chief, what combat did he engage in?     DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep Comment Nanta ee was in the battles for Najaf, Samarra and Fallujah in 2004 I know that based off of his combat imagery. I'm sure he didn't get three Purple hearts, two Bronze Stars, and the Combat Action Badge for just taking pictures. Most Combat Cameraman that I have talked with are not only taking photos, but find themselves engaging the enemy too. I'm sure for his tribe to bestow upon him the title of War Chief that it was not done lightly, being that they didn't have one for more than 70 years. The three things that Crow and Boers have in common is they are native american, both fought for their country, and they are both the only two living War Chiefs today. Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.144.68 (talk) — 173.55.144.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * [note: as this is the editor's second 'vote' I've struck out the 'keep' and replaced it with 'comment' to avoid confusion. No other changes to the post were made Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC) ]
 * Personnel in Iraq engaged in non-combat actions also got wounded--I believe this has happened to many combat photographers. He did not receive a Silver Star, but a Bronze Star (according to thee article), and that medal is awarded for The silver Star is given to those who have" distinguished himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, ..., in connection with military operations against an armed enemy; a very honorable award, but not quite the same. We do not normally consider it a justification for articles.  The War Chief status seems to have been a little different judging by the two articles.    DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Crow and Boers both received the Bronze Star from the U.S. Army. However the Purple Heart is award for the following a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded- (1) In any action against an enemy of the United States. (2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged. (3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. (4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces. (5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force (6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack. (7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force. These are examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows: (a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action. (b) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap. (c) Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent.(d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire. (e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions. Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:(a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries. (b) Heat stroke. (c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents. (d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy. (e) Battle fatigue. (f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents. (g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence. (i) Post traumatic stressdisorders. (j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action. This where I got the information from on the Purple Heart - http://www.americal.org/awards/ph.htm . Also I am not sure what you asking or saying here? "The War Chief status seems to have been a little different judging by the two articles." Boers will be the last Native American War Chief on Active Duty, that is histortic in itself, there may not be another War Chief on Active Duty - again the title of War Chief is not given lightly. --173.55.144.68 (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC) — 173.55.144.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note 173.55.144.68 is a special purpose account created for the sole purpose of promoting the subject of this article. Rklawton (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —AustralianRupert (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd strongly suggest that editors considering this nomination first look at the article's 'References' section - there are few sources to support this article, and they're generally either non-reliable or from this person's employer (the US Army in this case). As such, WP:BIO isn't met. The 'external links' section is mainly works created by the subject of this article, and as such aren't of much use in establishing notability as they're not about him. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. A really interesting person, but I can't see how he is notable. Many more sources are needed. McMarcoP (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has LOTS of potential. It would be a shame if this article was deleted. Jeremy (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. Being a Master Sgt and receiving the medals he received would not justify an article. Having an honorary title awarded to him as "War Chief" after the combat means that he was not a "War Chief" while he earned the medals. Nothing says he led the Apaches in some war against the U.S. or another tribe, nor did he lead an Apache unit in a foreign war. He was just another soldier serving his country in wars. Juxtaposition of some non-notable activity and some award does not automatically create inherent notability. Edison (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. A lot has been said already, let me add one more argument: The German badges all are utterly unimportant; I would miss a cow right in front of me and still I got the marksman's badge in silver that he got in bronze. Same goes for the sportsman's badges. The suffix "teilgenommen" means participated in English, that is typically a nice way to say "failed".--Pgallert (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see anything indicating that the subject passes WP:BIO being shown here, sorry. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. Buckshot06(prof) 22:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: violates WP:BLP (very large chucks of unsourced information and quotes, lead me to believe it is largely WP:OR), and fails WP:BIO as the sources do not seem to be reliable or significant. While the subject is a soldier who has provided valuable service to his country and for which he should rightfully be respected, he is probably not notable by Wikipedia's standards per WP:N. The War Chief claim might make him notable, however, if that were the case then the article should probably be stubified, removing all information that is not sourced to verifiable and reliable sources. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep war chief is notable. source is national geographic book warriors in uniform by dr. viola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.71.254.248 (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note "Sourced" does not equal notability. "Sourced" equals verifiable.  Rklawton (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep War chief is notable among all Native American Nations. The source that this person uses is from “Warriors in Uniform The legacy of American Indian Heroism,” by Dr. Herman J. Viola a National Geographic Book (Pages 168-179) which is a reliable source. The other sources that the person uses is a PDF file from the National Museum of the American Indian Museum (which it ref. Chief Crow and Chief Boers as both War Chiefs – again another reliable source from the NMAIM). Then lastly this person uses the Lipan Apache Band of Texas tribal website as another source, it seems to me three sources have been provided to substantiate this claim of war chief. The National Geographic and the National Museum of the American Indian Museum are the strongest sources and most reliable being used, outside of his tribe. Now let’s take a look at what is notable under Wikipedia – it seems some of us have forgotten what it means. Did he pass the General notability guideline – Yes (received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent). Notability requires verifiable evidence – Yes (see above source sited).  Notability is not temporary – Yes (War chief is a permanent position). Are we looking at this too hard and trying to compare him to Chief Crow, two different bios here; but they are both war chiefs, which in itself is noteworthy. The author of this article mentions accomplished photographer. What does that mean? Accomplished is not noteworthy, it means proficient or established. So it seems to me he was establishing who this person was, like Chief Crow is a tribal historian for his tribe. Is a tribal historian noteworthy – No. Almost ever tribe has one, but it just establishes who Chief Crow is and what he does for his people. As a Native American – Hopi, A War Chief is a Great Honor and only a very select few earn this title. That hold true in almost every North American Tribe –check your facts. So War Chief is a position of nobility. Also you might want to check with the National Museum of the American Indian Museum in Washington D.C.; Chief Boers might be the first Native to earn that title since Chief Crow. Lastly on the comment of Chief Boers not leading Apaches or other Natives against the U.S. or other Native tribes made me laugh, this person, dose not understand today’s Native culture. The only way Natives today can uphold our warrior tradition is by serving in the U.S. military and that is how we can meet some of our requirements for counting coup like Chief Crow and Chief Boers did. Chief Crow and Chief Boers did not lead other Natives, but led other U.S. soldiers. So I recommend this article as “KEEP!” HOPI-WARRIOR--99.175.235.246 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep My friend – Hopi Warrior just showed me this page and I just had to put my two-cents on this one – WAR CHIEF is noteworthy. By the way, I am native to. Who is this Russell Klika guy and what makes him so noteworthy? I looked at Kilkia page and googled him. Then I googled Boers name and looked at his pictures. To me they seem to be equal as far as far being published and picture awards, but Boers has had stuff in National Geographic, Newsweek, Soldier of Fortune, Soldiers Magazine, USA today, Washington Post, and a whole bunch on that Defend America site. Yet Boers is not a accomplished photographer give me break, sound like someone has issues. That is not the issue thou, War Chief is notable to us, just ask any Native American.   “Choctaw-Warrior”  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.175.235.246 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - This user has already voted once above. Rklawton (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - — 99.175.235.246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP WAR CHEIF is a Noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.71.254.248 (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - This user has already voted once above. Rklawton (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Biography of an NCO. Sorry, but not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - WAR CHIEF is noteable. We can all agree that being an NCO and that Nanta ee (Boers) medals do not rate notabilty. WE can also agree that being a tribal historian does not rate too. What we are talking about is being a war chief. Chief Crow and Chief Nanta ee (Boers) are the only two living war chiefs today; Nanta ee (Boers) is the last one on active duty and the Apache have not had a war chiefs since the 1930's (refs: Warriors in Uniform). Also lets think about something according to wikipedia a "centerfold" is considered notable. okay, that means there are 12 of those a year, but there are only 2 living war chiefs and that isn't notable? what am I missing here? Okay so I'm new at this editing and writing thing, then help me out here insted of killing this aritcle. I was trying to give the big piture of who Nanta ee is; for example who is Gen Powell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell . Now before everyone starts beating me up, I'm not trying to compare the two (Powell and Boers); like I said I am just trying to show who this person is. A war chief is not based on one set of deeds, but over a period of time and accomplishments. Most tribes are looking for leaders with certian traits, not just warriors. If you watch the PBS special "WE SHALL REMAIN" you would learn that Geronimo did not become a war chief or chief, becuase he lacked certian traits, but he was still a great leader and a great warrior. Geronimo met all the requirements to become a war chief, but the elders and leaders didn't bestow that title on him, so as you can see this title is not taken lighlty with the apache people. So war chief is very notable. On Nanta ee (Boers) being an accomplished photogrpaher it is more than just winning awards, you can take his name "Johancharles Van Boers" and google it, and what comes up is nothing but photos that he has shot through out his military carrer, and to me that doesn't make him notable, but does make him accomplished. He has also place numerous times in MILPHOG, MILVID, and MILGRAPH as sited above that can be verfied through DINFOS. His military carrer can be verfied through his records, how I got the information was by contacting him and requesting the information. He provided me a copy of his "Enlisted Records Brief" and "2-1". I just do not know how to post those things and I am not sure if I am allowed to. Again, I was just try to tell the story of who this guy is. bottom line - war chief is notable. everything else we can all agree on is not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.144.68 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do the Apache still got to war as a tribe? No they do not. Is the title "war chief" thus any more notable than a university bestowing an honorary degree on someone? No it is not. Does it really mean anything? No it does not. A great honour for the recipient no doubt, but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I am not in any way being disrespectful to the Apache, but calling someone a war chief does not make them a war chief. We have to look at this gentleman's achievements, and they are the achievements of a solid career NCO, similar to those of a similar NCO in any army in the world, not a war chief. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This was not an honory title. He is the tribe's War Chief. Bestowing is a term used by the tribe when one earns the title, you are not elected in it and it is for life. Also I think you are living in the past of the old ways of the history books. Native American traditions are alive and well on and off the reservations, if you knew anything about the Native American culture you would not have made that statement. For example someone had mention something about war ponies not being taking, so dose that mean before the European's came over to America that there where no war chiefs in the native american cluture, becuase there where no horses for them to steal or capture; for the horses came over with the spainards. Native American's up hold their warrior traditions todfay thru their military service for one to become a war chief is more than leading his people into war or going to war, you should learn more what it means to be a war chief. I think you are basis this on hollywood movies or on past history not current history. You need to look at the here and now. Chief Crow earned his title in W.W. II and Boers earned his title in OIF, but both earned theirs titles in the traditional way according to their tribes traditions. So do you speak for the Apache? Do I? No. But it is not a honorary title nor can you belittle a Nation's (Apache) tradition, which to me it seems you are. So the question still remains is War Chief notable or not?
 * Note The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) sites that there are more than 500 tribes, most people do not understand what that means. What that means, is there are over 500 seperate nations within the United States boarder with over 500 seperation treaties and goverments with these tribes. Even though most people want to lump Native Americans into one category, you can not, that would be like saying all of Europeans are the same. You know those Germans, English, French they are all the same with the same goverments, the same traditions, etc. right? No. The same holds true for the native americans. Where am I going with this. That is what is happening here on this page, a lot of folks here are looking at the past and not the present, or trying to compare the different tribes. You can not do this. On that note - Nanta ee's title is not honorary and I just wanted to add a little more to this subject. Should something happen to the Tribal Chairman Romero, then Nanta ee would step up and take over the tribe until a new tribal chairman was put into place. That is just one of his duties, does that sound like an honorary title. I don't think so.  This can be confirmed through the Lipan Apache Band of Texas. On another note the Apache have never bestowed any honorary titles of "War Chief" upon anyone, so comparing his title to an honorary degree is very disrepectful to the Apache people and to Nanta ee, in my opinion. Laslty if you read the book "Warriors in Uniform" you would know that native americans today still uphold their warrior traidion, so it is not "Do the Apache still got to war as a ribe?" They still practice those traidtion even in combat today, while in combat Nanta ee followed his tradition, which was stated in the book. It is part of their culture, it is part of their lives, this is not hollywood, it is real life. When at Pow Wow and other ceremonies they honor their warriors in the old way, most people do not do this, but Native people alawys have and still do today. So again the question is does War Chief rate notability or not?


 * Keep These are all good points. War chief is noteworthy, but rest is not. Recommend a rewrite of the information to make it a stronger article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.250.193.218 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - — 198.250.193.218 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. Rklawton (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note It is agreed on Wikipedia that notability must be demonstrated using what are termed "reliable sources". So my first question to everyone is - is not War Chief notable? War chief is a postion equal (or at least comparable) to Secretary of Defense, a war chief is also a diplomat for his tribe, so if a playboy centerfold rates as notable, then I'm sure war chief does. Next Nanta ee is sited in reliable sources as a war chief in "Warriors in Uniform The Legacy of American Indian Heroism" by Dr. Herman J. Viola Pages 168-179 which is a National Geographic Book. On the Lipan Apache Band of Texas website and a PDF from the National Museum of the American Indians (where Chief Crow, Chief Boers and others Veterans where quest speakers.) Their is a picture of Boers serving in Iraq on the front page of Indian Country Today (Wednesday, April, 7, 2004) which is major Native American Newspaper. Another aritcle was in Stars and Stripes (Thursday, November 28, 2002) Page 6. He was interviewed and fetured in the "Training Journal" Volume 3 Edition 1 March 2001 A picture of him as a combat cameraman on the front cover, and an article about him and combat camera on pages 11-14. He was also one of the soldiers featured in the "Training Journal" Volume 4 Edition 3 Pages 12-16 U.S. "Soldiers take Austrain Challenge at a Vertical Run." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.144.68 (talk • contribs)


 * Reply As noted above, there isn't a question about verifiability. There is a question about notability.  The author wishes to compare this individual to a Playboy Centerfold.  However, in the very large world of modeling, being selected as a Playboy Centerfold is notable.  However, the anonymous author raises an interesting point by making this particular comparison.  Surely a "war chief" is less notable than a tribe's "chief" - yet the Lipan Apache's own chief has no article in Wikipedia.  This should serve as a strong indicator that a lesser position lacks notability.  Next - the award or honor was not bestowed upon Chuck by the Apache.  It was not even bestowed upon him by the Lipan Apache.  It was bestowed upon him by the Lipan Apache Band of Texas - a subset of a subset of native Americans.  So, the question repeatedly raised is: "does the award of 'War Chief' made by the 'Lipan Apache Band of Texas' provide sufficient notability for this individual to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements?"  The answer to this question is clearly "no".  Rklawton (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I am Nanta ee. I have created a Wikipedia account for the purpose of responding to assertions made in this article. It is my understanding that this article has been recommended for deletion based on the premise that it is a conflict of interest and created for the purpose of self-promotion. My only prior participation with Wikipedia has been minimal and was only to verify a couple of information requests for who I believe is the editor at IP 173.55.144.68. I do not know this person. Therefore, this contention is without basis. I am Apache. There is the Apache nation and there are tribes within the Apache nation. The elders from the Lipan, Mescalero and San Carlos (Apache) tribes bestowed the title of War Chief upon me. This title was earned by my coups obtained in battle. There are many coups; I earned all of them. The coups are defined by the Apache people, and have nothing to do with the Hollywood-based perceptions attributable to a number of the editors of this article. The elders not only considered my deeds, but also my character and my relationship with our people. Their decision was not based on a single act, but who I am as a person and the potential they see for me in the future. This is the Native way. The basis of their decisions is similar to the reasons a person is elected in the United States. Tribal chairmen/chairwomen, or chiefs, are elected by their tribes. What is notable about a war chief is that they are not elected; the title is bestowed for life. If something were to happen to the tribal chairman, the war chief would act as chairman until a replacement was elected into the position. Tribal chairman represent their individual tribes. War chiefs represent many tribes and their nation. There has always been a tribal chairman. There has not been an Apache war chief for over 70 years because the title is not bestowed lightly. It is a great honor. A war chief is notable to Native peoples. Chief Joseph Medicine Crow and I are the only officially recognized war chiefs. I am the only war chief on active duty. I may be the only war chief ever to have been on active duty. That question is still being researched. While there are similarities in that we are both Native, the Apache nation is separate from the Crow nation and adheres to their own standards. Chief Crow was named War Chief after his service in WWII, not during. His writings define him as a person and demonstrate his relationship with his people. My work similarly defines me. My military service has been the means to pursue our warrior traditions. It is relevant to being a war chief, but not notable and should not be part of this discussion. Much of the text within this article appears to be extraneous information or excerpted from Dr. Viola's book "Warriors in Uniform," but has not been properly sited. Dr. Viola is a noted authority on American Indians and currently Curator Emeritus at the Smithsonian. I recognize the irony in writing these comments when the contention is that I am self-promoting. It doesn't matter to me whether or not this article exists. However, what does matter is the potential act of deleting this article based on misinformation and a lack of awareness of Native culture. War chief is notable. Jboers (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply There are many Chiefs but there are only two living War Chiefs today. Nanta ee is the only one currenlty serving on active duty today and the first in more than 70 years. I am not native, nor do I make any claims to be, but what makes you an expert to speak on their behalf. To me it seems that National Geographic, and the National Museum of the American Indians takes the time to mention Nanta ee's title, so to me that makes them more creditable. It seems that you are dead set on deletion. Do you know this person? You have sometihng against him? I am just curious, becuase I have seen less on wikipedia as notable like Russell Klika. Please don't take it as attack, because I am just wonder why you you are so hard on this guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.144.68 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note Here is Boers' work that had inspired an artist http://www.history.army.mil/art/Peters/What%20Is.jpg . http://www.history.army.mil/art/A&I/AVOP-0906.htm . these are links from the U.S. Army Center of Military History.


 * Note more to show that Boers is an acomplished photogrpaher and his images are not just used by the military like the one photographer I sited before. These are from World News http://article.wn.com/view/2008/03/22/Stiglitz_Iraq_War_costs_us_trillions/ and   http://article.wn.com/view/2008/03/19/Book_War_in_Heaven/  His images can been found on flickr that have been posted by other people http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingnews/272547302/in/set-72157594333248052/ . This demonstrates that his work his popular with people and is good, doesn't make him noteworthy, but does make him accomplished. Still I disagree. Boers is noteworthy as a war chief being that his tribe has not had one in over 70 years, he is an accomplished photgrapher more so than (or at least equal to) Russell Klika, but I do not see you (Rklawton) recommending his page for deletion, which makes me wonder and question your motives as an editor, even though I might be new at this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.144.68 (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note Here is another one of Boers' images that was made into a print by an artist. I find it remarkable that this combat photgrpaher images inspire artist to want to paint and draw his work. http://www.gallon.com/proddetail.asp?prod=gl-mi-106 and yet we say he is not accomplsihed or notable. This based off his photo that made the cover of Newsweek (Nov 2004) This print is a snapshot of Task Force Danger full-spectrum operations in Iraq. The concept for this print came from a photo taken on October 1, 2004 during combat operations in Samarra as a part of Operation Baton Rouge. The original photo, laser seen on the cover of Newsweek, showed soldiers from the 9th Engineer Battalion, attached to Task Force 1-77, conducting urban operations to secure the city of Samarra under the command and control of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team. This was the start of operations to secure the city of Samara from insurgent forces and return control to legitimate Iraqi authorities. Over the months leading up to execution, Task Force Danger and the 2nd Brigade Team set the conditions for success. On September 20, 2004, the tempo of insurgent attacks in Samarra increased and the Prime Minister of the Government of Iraq made the decision to use force to eliminate enemy forces in the city. Combat operations began on October 1, 2004. The 2nd Brigade Combat Team, with five Task Force Danger task forces reinforced with six Iraqi Security Force battalions, attacked to destroy insurgent forces and strongholds within the first 72-hours of the operation. The Iraqi Security Forces committed to the battle played a major role in the liberation of Samarra, by clearing and securing key infrastructure and sensitive sites. Following combat, the Division surged financial support into the city to restore basic services and infrastructure, an effort critical to create conditions that would lead to the execution of larger civil-military projects. Operation Baton Rouge will serve as a model for future full-spectrum operations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.144.68 (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2009 (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.