| abstract
| - The sources provided in this article barely mention its subject, who is a living person - they only refer to him in passing in his role as a judge, and don't contain anything close to significant coverage of him as either a person or in his official role. As such, WP:BIO and WP:BLP are obviously not met, and it's unclear to me why the article was created. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep Doesn't WP:BIO list certain occupations, which are considered notable, by default? From WP:BIO#Politicians: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices. Four other members of the Court of Military Commission Review were nominated for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Bechtold. The consensus there was that this court was a national court, and those articles were kept as per the clause I quoted above. The closing administrator wrote: The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that national-level appellate judges are notable ex officio. Consensus can change, but, given that closure, I thought an artice about Conn would also be in order. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I think that it's fair to say that we take BLP issues much more seriously than was the case in 2008, so that isn't a good precedent. Thank you for the explanation of why the article was created, but there appears to be no coverage of this person (for instance a search of Colonel David Conn returns almost nothing on Colonel Conn). Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Could you please be more specific about your BLP concern? Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC) The presumption to privacy. On the basis of my search for sources (which seem to have returned similar results to yours judging from the sources used in the article) Colonel Conn is not notable. As such, we shouldn't have an article on him just because he holds a position through which he's presided over some cases which were reported in the media. On the basis of the near total lack of sources, I'm not at all convinced that there should be any assumption of notability for judges on this court. Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Okay.
* The lead section says "...must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." Were you suggesting the article lapsed from this instruction?
* WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy has subsections, but its main section is empty.
* Can I assume you are not suggesting the article victimizes Colonel Conn as described in WP:BLP#Avoid victimization?
* The next section is WP:BLP#Public figures. If you think the article lapses from this section, could you please explain how?
* The next section WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources is intended to protect individuals from identity theft.
* The next section is WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown -- which I suggest is not relevant for holders of notable public offices.
* The next section is WP:BLP#Subjects notable only for one event -- which I suggest is not relevant as per WP:BIO#Politicians as I quoted above.
* The next section is WP:BLP#Persons accused of crime -- which I suggest is also not applicable.
* The next section is WP:BLP#Privacy of names -- which I suggest is also not applicable for holders of notable public offices. Thanks in advance for explaining your privacy concern. Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Please see my above comment: he's not notable, so we shouldn't have an article on him, and in my view this article infringes his right to privacy. I hope that asking these questions in such a wordy fashion when I'd already explained my concern isn't an attempt to generate a discussion-stopping WP:CHUNK. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER and was a judge on a court that does not reach the bar of "members are significant". Could possibly be redirected to United States Court of Military Commission Review, but should be deleted first either way. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Can you please explain why should it matter whether or not he fulfills the criteria suggested in the essay WP:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People -- if he fulfills the criteria in guideline WP::Notability (people)#Politicians? Shouldn't a guideline trump a essay? Could you please address whether you agree or dispute whether he fulfills the criteria for WP::Notability (people)#Politicians as a judge holding a national office? Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* He fails WP:POLITICIAN, too, as I said in my initial statement ("...a judge on a court that does not reach the bar..."). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* Comment I've just removed some fairly POV wording from the article. This includes material relating to 'controversial' tactics used by the prosecution in a case Conn presided over which was cited to a primary source which didn't mention Conn (the news story on the trial only identifies him as being one of the panel of judges which presided over it), a couple of irrelevant quotes included as part of reference citations, and POV wording which implied that Spc. Adam Winfield committed murder - he was found guilty of not preventing murders rather than committing them. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete Non notable subject, Fails WP:BIO and also Fails WP:SOLDIER. The creator Geo Swan's arguement of WP:POLITICIAN fails on "the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", because there is no coverage of the subject other than taking the name in the articles on proceedings.--DBigXray 06:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* DeleteFails WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. I can't find reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the topic, which are required to establish notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete - (1) colonels are not inherently notable, and (2) the court on which he was a judge is not a major appellate court. He also fails my standards for notability of attorneys. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete, subject fails WP:GNG as there is not "significant coverage" directly regarding the individual. Additionally subject fails WP:SOLDIER. The military tribunal may pass WP:GNG, however those individuals who are part of said tribunal appear not to warrant individual articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)