Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Baker


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. Once again, I disagree with the consensus, but am still abiding by it. &mdash; J I P | Talk 18:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sean Baker
I nominate Sean Baker for deletion because it is essentially a non-notable, vanity piece about a fellow that filed a law suit last May against Rumsfeld and the US Govt. There is very little about Sean Baker in the article. The first version of the article had no sourcing whatsoever. I asked the author to clean it up and now it has several news articles as sources. One of those sources mentions that there is a pending motion to dismiss. Should every plaintiff that files a lawsuit against Rumsfeld have a Wikipedia article? Or should we wait to see what happens in his case. Joaquin Murietta 15:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Disclaimer - I am not the person who started this article, although the person who listed this article for possible deletion thinks I am. The person who listed this article for deletion has made the effort to check out a number of articles I have contributed lately.  I am happy to have my contributions vetted and peer reviewed by any wikipedian who can be civil and fair in their criticisms.
 * IMO opinion Baker's case is significant because there has been a debate as to whether the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay by their guards is overly brutal. So, when a guard volunteers to act as a prisoner, in a training exercise, and is beaten so severely that he has a dozen seizures a day, this is a significant, verifiable fact that can play a role in the public forming their own decision over how much force the guards should use.
 * JM, the lister, has been making unwiki personal attacks on my grammar, judgement, maturity and intellectual honesty, in addition to violating wiki procedures by nominating articles for deletion over their perception those articles are POV. See the article on Carolyn Wood, which they nominated for deletion, over POV issues, without even putting an NPOV tag on first, or stating any specific POV concern.  --  Geo Swan 21:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  No opinion. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The story was covered by the international press; that makes it notable enough for me. The present article does need NPOV-ing, but it sure doesn't fit any criteria for deletion that I can see. Haeleth 16:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Gator1 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to have been a major participant of a fairly major political dispute with international media coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep worthy article, keep per Haeleth --Me or a Robin 11:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Internationally notable news event.--OorWullie 08:55, 23 October 2005 (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.