Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam C. Winfield

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 FOB Ramrod kill team . Reading the comments, it does seem inappropriate to make an article about him individually. (I wouldn't rule it out permanently; conceivably enough will be written eventually about him as an individual). Even if we had no BLP rules, I'd consider it inappropriate. I do not see how merging to a group article is in any way censorship & I thank Hiberniantears for starting a suitable one for the purpose DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam C. Winfield[edit]

Adam C. Winfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With an acknowledgment that this issue is recent and possibly well covered, I think it's WP:1E and isn't notable on its own. Would support a merge into another article assuming there is such an article (not sure what that would be right now). Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy/Strong keep - highly notable, tons of sources and surely a notable person allegedly committing one of the most serious war crime cases to emerge from the War in Afghanistan. WP:1E does not apply as the crimes were committed in stages and a long period of time. Surely a notable person that people want to know about. IQinn (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An enlisted soldier committed "one of the most serious war crime[s] to emerge from the War in Afghanistan."? That's your reason? That needs a source, and that also needs some historical context. Shadowjams (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That needs some historical context? What do you mean by that? There are tons of sources that establish notability and there are tons of sources for "one of the most serious war crime[s] to emerge from the War in Afghanistan." This is fully verified. Our nominator as many other people obviously have not heard about it and the people who allegedly committed it what is a very strong reason why we should have the article. IQinn (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't the place to discuss the magnitude of war crimes. Equating an enlisted soldier's transgression with "the most serious war crime" is a bold statement on its own, and even if true, isn't one that the 1E criteria is relevant to directly. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The magnitude of the alleged war crime could be important to established notability and "one of the most serious war crimes" used by WP:RS just adds to already established notability. If you personally think WP:1E is relevant here than please have a look at WP:VAGUEWAVE and explain. IQinn (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, he asks for a reference for this bold opinion, which I have asked as well. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some work on this article two days ago. One of the weaknesses I decided to address was to see whether the assertion in the article could be sourced to an WP:RS. It didn't take very long to determine that it could. And I changed the article to reflect that -- two days ago. Now, personally, my interpretation of our deletion policies is that those weighing in have an obligation to express informed opinions. Personally, I think this requires spending at least 30 seconds with your favorite search engine, to see if the topic is more notable than the current state of the article would indicate. Personally, I think that those who weigh in should actually read the article, or at least more than the first screenful if the article is long. And, personally, I think those weighing in with a "delete" opinion really ought to check in, periodically, to see if the article had been improved, in ways that address their concerns. I think they should do so even if they don't weigh in with additional comments.
    • "US soldiers 'plotted to slay Afghans'". The Australian. 2010-08-27. Retrieved 2010-09-15. Two were also hit with grenades in one of the most serious war-crimes cases to emerge from the Afghan war.
    • "U.S. soldiers accused of murders". National Post. 2010-09-10. Retrieved 2010-09-16. The charges are part of one of the widest-ranging U.S. war-crime cases to emerge from the conflict in Afghanistan.
    • Marc Hujer (2010-09-13). "'I Need to Be Secretive about This'". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2010-09-17. News of such atrocities, committed by international troops who are supposed to be bringing stability and justice to Afghanistan, has a particularly serious effect in his country, says Nader Nadery of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. On the other hand, he adds, the investigations against the soldiers in the United States show "that such atrocities do not go unpunished, and that the men must stand trial for their misconduct."
    • Lynn Herrmann (2010-09-10). "US Army 'kill team' allegedly murdered Afghan innocents for sport". Digital Journal. Retrieved 2010-09-17. The charges appear to be some of the most serious war crimes to have emerged in the Afghan occupation, an occupation that President Obama recently referred to as a "tough slog."
    • Hal Bernton (2010-09-08). "Stryker soldiers allegedly took corpses' fingers". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2010-09-17. As part of one of the widest-ranging U.S. war-crime cases to emerge from the conflict in Afghanistan, charging documents released Wednesday allege soldiers took finger bones and other body parts cut from Afghan corpses.
    • Marc Hujer (2010-09-13). "Did US Soldiers Target Afghan Civilians? War Crime Allegations Threaten to Harm America's Image". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2010-09-17. If the claims made in the indictment are true, the crimes committed by the kill team went beyond the killing of Afghan civilians. In fact, the men allegedly devised "scenarios" for the killings, a kind of script that included plausible pretexts for the murders. Gibbs is believed to have been the planner, while the younger team members did the shooting. The men apparently treated killing as a sport.
  • Speedy/Strong delete. This is a BLP and as such, sensationalism of this nature is highly inappropriate. Yes, the crime is heinous and widely reported, however, this is not the place to report news. See → WP:NOTNEWS. The subject is only CHARGED with a crime. This is an encyclopedia, not a news media outlet. There is a different set of standards here. At this point, inclusion of this case on Wikipedia implies general acceptance of his guilt in the public eye, regardless of whether the terms "charged" and "allegedly" are used in the article. If this article is kept and the subject is found not guilty, it will most certainly be time for a Wikipedia prayer circle to either quickly revise the article to reflect the finding of the court or delete it altogether. Cindamuse (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Only charged with a crime? He was charged with conspiracy and murder in one of the most serious war crimes in the war of Afghanistan. If you see a problem with WP:NPOV than you are welcome to edit the article. Afd is not the right place to deal with neutrality. There is no reason to delete this article. Surely there is a lot to do as the article had been nominated only hours after its creation. This alleged crime and the people involved are highly notable and there is no reason given for deletion. There are tons of sources. We have the responsibility to inform our readers in a neutral way about all topics and we can not simply leave out things that we may do not like. IQinn (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, charged. Not convicted. The issue is not one of WP:NPOV, but one of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERP. There are three criteria for inclusion listed at WP:PERP, of which Winfield meets ZERO. Specifically note according to WP:PERP, Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. The recommendations to keep, while offered with good faith, are ill-advised. This article is highly inappropriate and should be deleted as quickly as possible. Cindamuse (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You state above that, in your opinion, Winfield meets "ZERO" of the criteria at WP:PERP. I followed your recommendation, looked at WP:PERP, and explained why I thought he fulfilled the third criteria. In your comments below have you tacitly acknowledged he does, after all, fulfill a criteria from WP:PERP?

      In your comment immediately above, and in your comment that immediately precedes it, you called this article "highly inappropriate", due to "sensationalism". A perception of sensationalism in our coverage of a topic that is itself worthy of coverage is simply not grounds for deletion, as per our deletion policies. If the topic itself is worthy of coverage, perceptions of problems with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, or WP:VER are supposed to be addressed on the article's talk page, or through the use of wikitags -- not deletion. Isn't your perceived concern over sensationalism just a concern over WP:NPOV, something that, if others agreed with you, could be addressed by rewriting the most sensational passages. In particular, if, like User:Shadowjams, your particular concern was over the assertion in the article that this was the "one of the most serious war crime[s] to emerge from the War in Afghanistan..." wasn't referenced, and wasn't attributed to WP:RS, please acknowledge that this passage has been rewritten so it is referenced and attributed to WP:RS. Geo Swan (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't know what you're reading, but I never stated that the subject meets any criteria of WP:PERP. My concerns stand. This article cannot be rewritten as appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia short of a conviction. Cindamuse (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in that case, would you please consider addressing my reasoning as to why Winfield does fulfill the third criteria? Geo Swan (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With all due respect, I have thoroughly addressed the comments in this AfD that assert that the article should be kept. However, I have not seen reason presented to keep the article that is in accordance and alignment with Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, I believe continued discussion regarding your personal opinions and assertions in disregard of guidelines that clearly state that this article should be deleted, would be unfruitful. I am confident that the closing admin will recognize the concerns presented here. Cindamuse (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With all due respect, seem like you ask us to prove a negative. The article is notable and meets WP:GNG amd WP:PERP. Notability is established , all requirements for inclusion are given and no valid policy based argument stands against the inclusion. As an reliable encyclopedia we have the responsibility to cover all notable topics although we might personally would like to censor certain information. I think your continuous refusal to provide us with valid policy based arguments for deletion and your general refusal to discuss is not helpful. IQinn (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most important thing missing from WP:NOT is wikipedia should not be a hagiography. Of course Winn is innocent until proven guilty. And, after drafting articles on more than a million individuals I think we should be pretty experienced how to draft a neutrally written article about individuals who face charges, without implying their guilt is a proven fact. Actually, I think the effect of suppressing our neutrally written, properly referenced, non-sensational articles, is directly counter the spirit of BLP, because it leaves our reader to rely on press coverage that is often not neutral, and is written from a sensational point of view. Geo Swan (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Sadads (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These alledged crimes were committed, if I understand correctly, by a number of soldiers of 5th Bde, 2nd Inf Div. Alternately, if we were looking for a place to put this info, the brigade/division article would be a possibility. This would also cover the alledged, rather than convicted, nature of the crime. 'War crimes allegations were directed towards a number of soldiers of the bde..' Buckshot06 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: it's eminantly clear that the article as it stands violates WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP; however, the event is highly notable. Given that he is only one of twelve suspects, the article should be about the incident and not the individual(s) accused. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: FOB Ramrod kill team has been created and should be the target of the redirect, per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Redirect? To where? If you personally think WP:1E is relevant here than please have a look at WP:VAGUEWAVE and explain. Same with WP:PERP, the policy does not say that we can not have an article on a Perpetrator of one of the most serious war crime cases in recent history. We can not afford not to have an article on him. People want to know. More and more details are emerging for example that Adam Winfield sent messages to his father Christopher back to the States during the time of the alleged crimes in Afghanistan to alert him of the alleged crime. Christopher Winfield tried to contact the Army but they did not believe him. Our reader want to know about the alleged Perpetrators. IQinn (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely none of that addresses my point whatsoever. I did explain my reasoning instead of merely citing a policy link, so I don't get whey you are attempting to direct me to VAGUEWAVE. And PERP specifically does state that individuals with no further claim to notability than the event are not notable as a biography. Conversely, the claim that people want to know is a weak argument per WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL, and WP:NOT#NEWS, which is the point of having notability criteria in the first place.
In any case, none of your arguments seem to refute my point that an article about the incident would better serve the encyclopedia than a biography about the individual. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am pointing you to WP:VAGUEWAVE because you said "..the article as it stands violates WP:BLP1E.." without explaining how. So it would be nice if you could explain how.
You might also please explain why the article that more than fullfills our general notability guidelines can not be included under WP:NOT#NEWS. Simply pointing to policies is not enough.
Regarding WP:PERP, you are cherry picking one part of this policy that does not allow this biography while leaving out other parts that do. The policy specially allows biographies like this one. 3 ) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual...' and that is doubtless the case here.
You !vote redirect and i ask you where you want to redirect to? Would be nice if you could answer my question. IQinn (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't acquit your intelligence well if you need me to explain to you how to apply a policy that states that a BLP with only one claim to fame isn't suitible for an article; it's pretty straight forward and I did exlain beyond a bare policy ref in my original vote. If you don't understand BLP1E, then you should be going to the talk page there, rather than disputing an active AfD. If you disagree, then don't toss out a strawman by asking me to explain that which you already understand. VAGUEWAVE shouldn't be used as an excuse to be lazy and not read the policy. Same goes for NOTNEWS.
Regarding PERP, your opinion does not pass. The motivation/execution of the alleged crime is not terribly unusual in a war zone that has been fraught with similar charges. In fact, I have yet to hear of this particular case, and I follow these kinds of headlines fairly well. You'll have to prove that your opinion that this charge meets criteria 3 of PERP is not the minority opinion for me to change my mind. Your accusation of cherry picking is simply outrageous.
In all, perhaps you could look to precedent here, such as the Haditha killings, perhaps. And no, I don't have a title in mind to redirect to, but that's open to discussion. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that i fully understand WP:BLP1E and i am surprised that you just keep pointing to the policy without explaining how the policy is violated WP:VAGUEWAVE. WP:BLP1E does not apply. You claim the article violates WP:BLP1E but that is not the case so you have to explain. Yes simply pointing to policies is not enough. Same goes for NOTNEWS.
Regarding WP:PERP - There is no comparison with the Haditha killings. This here is much more unusual and serious as the soldiers planned to murder civilians for fun. I saw from you editing history that you are heavily editing Us military articles and you may have some insider knowledge i do not know about. You arguing that it is pretty usual for United army soldiers to form "kill teams" and to murder civilians for sport and to keep body parts like finger bones as war trophies? [1] I do not think so. This is and has been classified by tons of WP:RS as "one of the most serious war crimes" for a reason. IQinn (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT the intelligence of other contributors -- we are supposed to confine our comments to the issues. Any genuine doubts we have about other contributor's intelligence we should keep to ourselves. Geo Swan (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see from your continued rantings and ravings that I'm not going to get through to you, so I will no longer waste my time in attempting so. The closing admin will surely have the intelligence to see the wisdom of the argument. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rantings and ravings? Who do you mean Geo Swan or me? I strongly refuse that i was "ranting and raving". I think it would be better you continue the content discussion with valid policy based arguments if you disagree. IQinn (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simple case of WP:BLP1E who has only been charged with a crime. However, a redirect to the event works, too. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After leaving my "keep" opinion above I did some work fixing the bare-naked URLs in this article, and in the article on the ringleader, Calvin Gibbs. The comment has been made above that Winfield was just "one of twelve" alleged perpetrators, and that whatever was worthy of coverage about them should be covered in one article, about "the event". I don't think we have enough detail to flesh out articles on all twelve alleged perpetrators, and I suggest the also-rans should be covered in an article that included the base where the murders occurred. The murders occurred when the GIs, all in Company B, where stationed at Forward Operating Base Ramrod. So, I think they should be covered in an article with a title like, "FOB Ramrod murder conspiracy".

    The way I see it, an association with the conspiracy is not a "one event". The three murders we have heard about were spread over a four month period. Why shouldn't each be considered a separate event? As Iqinn noted above, Winfield is reported to have tried blow the whistle on the genuine perps. Winfield is not the only whistleblower. Three days after the third murder a newly arrived recruit tried to report that murder, and was severely beaten. The rings crimes came to light after the beating of that second whistleblower was investigated. In addition to the murders the ring is alleged to have, kept body parts of their victims' corpses, as trophies, robbed civilians and to have indulged in heavy use of hashish, which, like opium, is cheap and plentiful in Afghanistan.

    The way I see it, as of September 16, 2010, Gibbs, and Winfield merit individual articles. The rest should be covered in an article on the ring, which should have a {{seealso}}s for Gibbs and Winfield. Additional individuals may merit coverage in separate articles, as more details emerge.

    Another contributor refers us to the WP:PERP section of WP:Notability (people). They quoted a passage from that section: "Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." As I wrote above, the wikipedia currently contains articles on something like one million individuals. I think we should know, by now, how to write articles on alleged perps, without implying their guilt had been proved. We should consider not creating an article on Winfield, "until a conviction is secured"? OK, what does the rest of the section say? The third of the three numbered points in the section says:

    "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime, as above."

OK. The murder ring are alleged to have killed innocent civilians for thrills. I suggest this fulfills the "unusual" motivation clause in PERP. I suggest killing with a grenade, suddenly tossed over a wall, fulfills the "unusual" execution clause. Similarly keeping body parts of the victim's corpses fulfills the "unusual" execution clause. So, we considered not covering these individuals. And since they fulfill these earlier clauses of PERP they merit coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's absolutely nothing new or unusual about a war crime taking place in Afghanistan. And this specific incident is not a well-documented historic event. Reliable sources do not provide persistent significant coverage of Winfield's individual involvement in this incident. The content added to the article equates to a great amount of allegations, claims, and unproven charges. Again, inappropriate. Cindamuse (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may be correct -- that there is "absolutely nothing new or unusual about a war crime taking place in Afghanistan." Although I have been following events there closely I don't know how common it is for GIs go into combat while high on drugs. I don't know how many GIs rob civilians. I don't know how common it is for GIs to kill civilians for kicks, or to keep body parts as trophies. If you served in Afghanistan, and you have first hand knowledge of how common these things are, I will remind you that you are not an WP:RS, and your experience just doesn't count, can't influence what goes into article space. If we go by what we can document, this is extremely unusual series of events. I remind you that the wikipedia's policies require us to stick strictly by what we can document. Even if, for the sake of argument, you and I and Iqinn and everyone else who works on these articles privately believe that this series of events is not unusual, the thing that would make this series of events remarkable is that, this time, charges were laid. Geo Swan (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The term "unusual" is subjective, yet, based on precedent, war crimes and incidents of this nature against civilians are nothing new. Cindamuse (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common crime? Nothing new? Do you have some insider knowledge? Is it that what our troops usually do in Afghanistan? I think your exceptional claim that this is what our troops routinely do in Afghanistan needs some exceptional references for verification. IQinn (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I never used the words "common" or "routine". "Routine" and "unusual" are terms of understanding that reside at two ends of the spectrum. The conclusions that you have made are a misinterpretation of my comments. While war crimes and incidents of this nature against civilians are not the "norm", they remain nothing new. The fact that these incidents occur are no longer surprising when it comes to the war-torn areas in Asia and the Middle East. Sad as that may be. Cindamuse (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Your claim is laughable. The alleged crime is so unusual that we simply can not afford not to have a biography on the alleged perpetrator without being accused of redacting information that might be unpleasant for the US or US military sympathizer. Nothing new? US army soldiers forming "kill teams" to murder Afghan civilians for sport and keeping body parts as war trophies? That is new and highly unusual whatever you personally think. Maybe you have insider knowledge? No i do not believe US troops usually do this in Afghanistan. Your claim that this is a usual crime is simply based on your personal opinion and (i beg your pardon) ridiculous. IQinn (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I never used the term "usual" either. You can beg all you want. The article is still inappropriate. Cindamuse (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you for admitting that. Fact is that this is an very unusual crime and that we can have an article under WP:PERP. No matter how much some would like to censor this. Not only we can have the article - we should. Inappropriate? Not at all. IQinn (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You may want to consider reviewing Wikipedia:Policy shopping and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Might be helpful, after you failed with WP:PERP and you are now simply throwing in two links to policies. I am still waiting for your policy based arguments why you personally think the article is Inappropriate. IQinn (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With all due respect, it's quite clear from my editing history that I have never resorted to simple policy shopping. However, it's quite clear from your editing history that you lack knowledge of the specific guidelines of which this deletion is proposed. Accordingly, I am simply offering assistance, presented in good faith, that may help you in future deletion discussions. As I stated above, "I have thoroughly addressed the comments in this AfD that assert that the article should be kept. However, I have not seen reason presented to keep the article that is in accordance and alignment with Wikipedia guidelines." In my opinion, continued dialogue with you would be unfruitful. I am confident that the closing admin will recognize the concerns presented here. Cindamuse (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With all due respect, you once again fails to provide us with policy based arguments for deletion. Even you have been ask for these arguments multiple times. Worst now you turning to ad hominum arguments what is considered as uncivil WP:civil. NO there is no luck of understanding of policy. You won't get your favorite version of Wikipedia by stating what you personally think is "Inappropiate" without finding policy based arguments and than even refuses to discuss. It is just the fact that you have failed to provide us with valid policy based arguments why we should delete valuable content. No valid policy based arguments that would support a deletion. The article is notable and meets WP:GNG amd WP:PERP. Notability is established , all requirements for inclusion are given and no valid policy based argument stands against the inclusion. As an reliable encyclopedia we have the responsibility to cover all notable topics although we might personally would like to censor certain information. IQinn (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for acknowledging the subjective element in how we reach these decisions.
  • I agree that we should not, in general, cover incidents that are not out of the ordinary. Local newspapers may cover local murders. National newspapers don't. Similarly, we don't cover every individual murder in the USA, because, from a distant perspective, they are almost all very similar, and anyone who wants to know how murders are usually investigated, and how murder suspects are usually charged, prosecuted and punished can learn all they need to know from our articles on the US legal system

    We do cover some murders, when there are exceptional circumstances, like, when one of the parties was already a celebrity, or when the view that the was a miscarraige of justice is proven, or widely held.

    Now you may personally believe that the events Gibbs and Winfield are alleged to have participated in are nothing new. But, as I wrote above, there is no press coverage to back up that view. And, in contrast to the demonstrably common high murder rate in the USA, readers can't read about how other murders of civilians by GIs in Iraq or Afghanistan are usually prosecuted, in the articles on the US military justice system. Only a handful of instances have come to light, and each instance that has come to light has been sufficiently different that they are all remarkable, and worthy of coverage here. As I wrote above, without regard to how common you think this kind of incident is: "Even if, for the sake of argument, you and I and Iqinn and everyone else who works on these articles privately believe that this series of events is not unusual, the thing that would make this series of events remarkable is that, this time, charges were laid." Geo Swan (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are asking him to prove a negative in referencing that this manner of war crime is not unusual, which is quite unfair. Your opinion is that this incident stands out, and his opinion is that it does not. It seems unlikely that further debate is going to be productive on that matter of tension regarding notability, and thus unlikely to sway a vote. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Geo Swan has brought forward a founded analysis with tons of supporting arguments why this is an unusual crime and i think there is nothing unfair here. You are welcome to continue the discussion with valid counterarguments or not. In the case you can not find valid counter arguments, we have to assume that he is right and this is indeed an unusual crime. IQinn (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Calvin Gibbs under a new article name which refers to the events rather than the names of the accused, I suggest Kill team murders. Although not strictly a single event, it seems clear to me that the concept behind WP:BLP1E should apply here. The crimes themselves are distinguished from other recent war crimes because of the physical trophies and the threats against other unit members to keep them quiet. Thundermaker (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not stuck on my specific suggestion, fine with any of yours up to where you add "thrill", which is an assumption of motivation. The shorter the better, so FOB Ramrod kill team would be my top choice. You are correct that this is not the right forum to discuss deletion of Calvin Gibbs, although some of the same arguments apply. IMHO it will be cleaner if we resolve this AFD first before starting the second discussion. Do we have a consensus to create FOB Ramrod kill team and then redirect Adam Winfield there? Thundermaker (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about something along the lines of FOB Ramrod war crime investigation? The kill team part seems a bit sensationalized to me and is also putting the cart before the horse in the sense that no one has been convicted of being on kill team. If convictions come, then consider changing the name again. Just a thought. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "kill team" is mildly sensational; I support using that term because it was allegedly invented by the perps. "war crimes" is equally sensational IMHO, and "investigation" would seem to restrict the scope of the article -- eventually we will want to include details about trials and reparations resulting from the investigation. Thundermaker (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong confess 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to a new article on the event itself. A bio on this individual fails WP:BLP1E. SnottyWong confess 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain how the article could possible fail WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E? He is one of the alleged perpetrator of a major crime that took place over many month with a number of events. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been explained numerous times, but it's rather pointless to continue as you continually refuse to listen. Why don't you stop going back and forth and let the closing admin decide? Do you really believe either side will be swayed? I'm sure you don't, but I'm also positive this bantering will continue. Oh, and feel free to remind me of WP:CIVIL and Ad hominem, which you always like to throw out at editors with whom you disagree. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, nobody has has given valid arguments how this article fails WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E. That's why i keep asking. {Yeaah pretty WP:UNCIVIL and Ad hominem your comment never mind there are other places to deal with that.) Your comment suggest to me that you do not have an answer how this article violates WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E. The crime took place over months with a number of events so that WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E does not apply. So instead of wasting our time with Ad hominem arguments you may give us valid policy based arguments that would support your claim. Notability is established under WP:GNG amd WP:PERP. There is no reason to censor notable information. If you can not provide arguments how this article violates WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E, than we have to assume that your claim is wrong. So i suggest you give it a try. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename This seems just like cases such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green and should be treated similarly. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename with Calvin Gibbs into something like FOB Ramrod war crime investigation. Location (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename Merge with Calvin Gibbs and rename the article to become an article about their alleged crime. These aren't biographical articles. Both articles are almost entirely about the event -- there is very little information about the perpetrators, who are not known for anything other than this event. It's clear that the event is a notable one that should be documented in a Wikipedia article. I don't have an opinion about what the article's title should be. --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Changing my vote, as the merge option is better and this guy is essentially being tried in the press right now. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created FOB Ramrod kill team in the event there is a need to merge somewhere for BLP issues. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • People. You cannot make unsourced negative statements about a living person here. This page is so full of them that I have requested that it be deleted and started over. Herostratus (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense at all. Just tag or remove the unsourced and potentially slanderous statements that you find. Dream Focus 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person gets ample media coverage for what was a notable event. This is something that will be in history books, and will potentially shape laws and regulations. Dream Focus 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to the FOB Ramrod kill team article (or other similar article). I know that a lot of people think it's important to get every piece of information up about every news event, but there is a very good reason for WP:BLP1E--we simply cannot make an article about this person until we have extremely strong evidence (I would say that we would need, at a minimum, a conviction, along with evidence that this is more important than a typical crime occurring during war) before the perpetrator of a crime (if, he, in fact, did commit a crime) gets an article. This is because living people deserve the right to not have Wikipedia compound difficulties in their own lives. WP:BLP1E overrides notability and sourcing except in cases where we are certain that the event in question is highly important. It is very possible that Winfield may eventually meet the criteria necessary to surpass BLP1E; but we cannot know that now, nor possibly for a long time. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or redirect to an article about the event). Person gets charged (good). Media reports allegations (good). Editors create a fake BLP (bad). This is an encyclopedia, see WP:NOTNEWS. In six months, some hard facts should be available and the question of whether this individual warrants a biographical article can be revisited. If there is a conviction, the name of the living person can be recorded in an encyclopedic article; until then, it's just speculation about an alleged WP:BLP1E. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_C._Winfield&oldid=1137538475"