Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green


 * 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   merge to Mahmudiyah killings. If, as here, a policy (WP:BLP1E) applies to an article in a relatively straightforward manner, I am bound to consider arguments more strongly that argue for its application; conversely, I am bound not to weigh arguments that do not address why the policy should not apply here. The "keep" arguments of Judo112 and Geo Swan do not address the BLP1E issue and are thus discounted. Taking all this into account, we have a consensus to apply the BLP1E rule to this article.  Sandstein  05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Steven Dale Green

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

He did partake in an absolutely hienous crime, but it is also WP:BLP1E. His role is already covered in Mahmudiyah killings Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the extent of his trial and various related aspects extend beyond the coverage in Mahmudiyah killings. Manning (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Manning, the length of his trial which covered so much of his biography (we could do with adding the stuff about his childhood on this article), his "unique-ness" in being a convicted U.S soldier in civilian court and the fact he was the ring leader all make him notable enough for inclusion. Also his amount of coverage in various world media is indicative of his notability. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge any content necessary to Mahmudiyah killings. I think we need to follow the precedent at Articles for deletion/James P. Barker, which is that these men are notable for one event and as such we just have an article about that event. The only difference with Steven Dale Green seems to be that he plead not guilty, so he had a trial and that was covered. I suppose that makes him slightly more notable, but I don't think we have a good real-world argument (as opposed to an esoteric Wiki policy one) as to why Green gets an article but the others do not. If we're going to delete some, they should all be deleted. At Mahmudiyah killingswe have a section on "Legal proceedings," and I think the key content from this article can simply be merged there. The trial itself is worth discussing, but there's no reason at all we cannot do it in the article about the event, and we have to have some consistency in how we treat the BLPs for these individuals, rather than essentially "punishing" (since we would be keeping a negative bio) the one soldier who did not plead out. This is perhaps a somewhat out of policy argument I'm making here, but I think it's the right way to think about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is well-written and makes a lot of sense. Since none of the other have an article, he shouldn't either. The victim's name re-directs to the article as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on this article, but I would like to say that 1) using an AfD that violated normal procedure as a precedent is a bad idea and 2) all people involved in this crime (or any other event) are not inherently of equal notability. Saying the ring leader is automatically non-notable just because the other participants are is an invalid argument. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Point 2 is worth considering of course, but as to point 1, I'm not suggesting this should be deleted speedily, and in that sense don't want to follow the precedent for the James P. Barker article. My point is just that we have apparently decided to delete all articles about the other soldiers, and part of that precedent was established in that AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A consensus on one similar article or even about the same subject or event, doesnt mean that all other articles about it falls under the same consensus.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete / merge - agree that we should be consistent with respect to bios of other perpetrators. Further, I think this is a classic BLP1E scenario.  As heinous as their crime is, what is notable here is not the biographies of the individuals but rather the event itself.  Further, as a simple matter of content organization it would be redundant and unnecessary to have separate articles about each person involved.  The article about the killings is more than adequate (and were it not, any relevant information here could be merged there without overwhelming it or taking it off topic).  Wikidemon (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree (I nommed Barker's ) except that Green stands out from the others. Only he did the killing, his trial went on for years publicly in civilian court (the others were dealt with quickly in military court), and there was all the discussion generated by suggestion of the death sentence, plus he was the ringleader. Ryan 4314   (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Point 2 is worth considering of course, but as to point 1, I'm not suggesting this should be deleted speedily, and in that sense don't want to follow the precedent for the James P. Barker article. My point is just that we have apparently decided to delete all articles about the other soldiers, and part of that precedent was established in that AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A consensus on one similar article or even about the same subject or event, doesnt mean that all other articles about it falls under the same consensus.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete / merge - agree that we should be consistent with respect to bios of other perpetrators. Further, I think this is a classic BLP1E scenario.  As heinous as their crime is, what is notable here is not the biographies of the individuals but rather the event itself.  Further, as a simple matter of content organization it would be redundant and unnecessary to have separate articles about each person involved.  The article about the killings is more than adequate (and were it not, any relevant information here could be merged there without overwhelming it or taking it off topic).  Wikidemon (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree (I nommed Barker's ) except that Green stands out from the others. Only he did the killing, his trial went on for years publicly in civilian court (the others were dealt with quickly in military court), and there was all the discussion generated by suggestion of the death sentence, plus he was the ringleader. Ryan 4314   (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (or merge) per WP:BLP1E. There is no chance a bio of this person would be an article, except for the single event. It is the event that it notable and which needs an article (which it has). Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * His bio could be expanded, his entire biography was laid out in court (Just word search for "Green"). Biographical information hasn't been added to the article in 2 years, so what you see now does not depict the actual status of information available about him.  Ryan 4314   (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per lenghty article. good sourcing. why merge or delete something that is very good.--Judo112 (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as Manning. And my own personal opinion that the article isnt anywhere near a merge or delete worthy article in itself.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. There is information in here that doesn't really belong in the incident article, but I'm not absolutely convinced that deletion on BLP1E grounds, as I recommended for Barker, isn't appropriate here as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If the incident is notable enough, the BLP 1E does not reasonably apply. This particular crime is of international political significance. The trial also  too large a topic to fit in the main article, and is relevant and significant. DGG (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "If the incident is notable enough, the BLP 1E does not reasonably apply." Are you serious? So if a plane crashes in the ocean because a bomb was placed on it and 200 people die, that is probably going to qualify for an article. Does the pilot get his own article? The head stewardess? A Coast Guard rescue swimmer that found a lone survivor? That statement just seems way too broad for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * However you twist and turn your arguments its still a Keep article and far away from a merge or delete worthy article. Well your argument is also a bit wierd as this isnt about a pilot and has nothing to do with rescuing or killing 200 passengers. So that cant be compared.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - there's no skirting around WP:BLP1E. Yes, there's more coverage on him, but it's all related to the one event.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its always funny to see that the "deletion" thinkers always refers to one of the Wikipedia rules or guidelines which are always wide in interpretation. And no, mutch of what is in this article is spesificly about Steven and not the event itself. and it will be lost of the article is either merge or deleted.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also WP:BLP1E fails to have anything to do with this article as Steven is known for more than a one time event, he has been in both the killing and a mutch so media covered trial. With possible appeals and othr reactions or twists it totally fails that BLP again.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it equally funny to see that the "inclusion" thinkers try to split hairs like "the crime and the trial are different events" when everything still stems from one event. The trial is a result of the crime which drops it right back into WP:BLP1E. What you are doing is akin to saying that the crash into your back bumper is one event, your impacting the windshield is another and then demanding two seperate crash reports being completed by the police because they were "different events". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is another instance when the excessive urge to merge is a serious disservice to readers. Geo Swan (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Sorry, but WP:BLP1E still says to me that this private didn't do anything of note apart from the crime. Considering the likely media frenzy surrounding such a crime, (WP:NOTNEWS) and the fact it is covered in Mahmudiyah killings and because the trail - believe it or not - is related to same event (again, NOTNEWS), delete is the logical conclusion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete(or merge) per WP:BLP1E with Mahmudiyah killings. Notability has not been established for a separate article on the subject.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 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.