Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ben Strickland (2nd nomination)

It strikes me that this page refers to a matter of both public record and public interest. Whatever the merits of the allegations, they have been made in print by a retired judge. The subjects of sexual assault in the armed forces and whistleblower rights are of great current interest, and this case raises both. Commander Strickland's service is not in itself exceptional, however meritorious, and would not normally merit an entry. However, the circumstances surrounding one particular aspect of that service do, and therefore Commander Strickland's wider biographical profile is necessary for context. I would argue very strongly against the removal of pages such as this on the grounds advanced: what purpose would that serve? Whatever the intent, it reads like an attempt to reduce embarrassment for the US Coast Guard - which, of course, is exactly what Strickland and his defenders argue is behind his treatment. I have no means of assessing the accuracy of that claim, but it hardly undermined by an attempt to remove mention of it from Wikipedia.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should note that I know Commander Strickland, although I have not seen him in person for more than 20 years. We remain in intermittent touch via social media. It is there that I noticed and then followed with interest the events described. I do not offer my comments out of loyalty to a friend, nor from a wish to take up a position in the debate surrounding his treatment. Rather, I think it unwise and unwelcome to take down pages such as this, unless they can be shown to contain specific error.

C.C.P. Barr

2.216.55.107 (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no affiliation with the USCG, Strickland or Steverson. I have no COI in this matter. People have their own methods to put out information about themselves, their books or their press releases. They can use blogs, linked in, facebook, twitter, tumblr, etc. Wikipedia is not here for PR, search engine optimization or advocacy. See WP:Advocacy and also NOTADVOCATE. Also see: Notability for a full explanation of inclusion criteria. A single news article about the situation and no significant coverage of the Commander in media is why this does not meet the general notability criteria. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also see, Autobiography, even if this is not an auto-biography, just remember this is not always a place were an average person would want or need a biography. I have seen a number of people actually try to remove their biography because of embarrassing facts, but once an article exists here, you lose control over it. People should leave their cherry picked biographies for their own personal web sites where they fully control the content, can exclude embarrassing reasons for their forced retirement / firing and can advocate all they want. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)