Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolyn Wood
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep --Celestianpower hablamé 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This almost-orphaned article should be deleted because the subject is nn and there are POV issues, which probably cannot be solved by editing. The only link is Bagram torture and prisoner abuse. The subject, Capt. Wood, received two Bronze stars and was not the subject of a court-martial. Not sure why she's should be on Wikipedia. Joaquin Murietta 22:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This recipient of a high U.S. military award is notable. As for the controversy, sections describing both sides of the argument and sources other than Knight Ridder newspapers should be added. She has been mentioned in major media outlets including The Guardian and News 24. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes me wonder -- There are many Bronze Star awardees. The Medal of Honor is a higher award than the Bronze Star, but Wikipedia does not have a separate article for every Medal of Honor recipient. Should we?Joaquin Murietta 17:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to create those that you see fit JM. This is what WP is all about =:-) --Cactus.man ✍ 09:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes me wonder -- There are many Bronze Star awardees. The Medal of Honor is a higher award than the Bronze Star, but Wikipedia does not have a separate article for every Medal of Honor recipient. Should we?Joaquin Murietta 17:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are serious POV problems with this article. If it is kept it should be made clear that these are allegations not always from reliable sources and no charges have been laid against her. If we are to keep something on the Internet like this when there have been no charges of miscoduct laid against her, we should make sure that the article is accurate and NPOV.Capitalistroadster 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It amounts to agitprop. She's a minor figure ("implied that she was the author"), and it is highly unlikely that a fair and full account could ever be written. The Geneva Convention reference is vague and likely misleading. That's a big issue and this article isn't the place for it. -- Randy2063 21:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Disclaimer - I started this article
- I located a newspaper article[1] that reported testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee documenting her role in drafting the interrogation techniques, and acknowledging their use could be a violation of the Geneva Conventions. I believe this makes her notable. -- Geo Swan 12:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article also says that Capt. Woods was not at the hearing. So now we have an article about a woman who was not charged with any crimes or offenses, not court martialed, and not called as a witness. The Washington Post reported that she told investigators that she objected to the CIA being there, but she was over ruled. [2]. Joaquin Murietta 14:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- She might not yet be a woman charged with any crimes or offences, but this article says: "Attorneys for soldiers charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal believe that Wood was instrumental in setting policy for interrogations at the Iraqi prison - just as she did in Afghanistan.". This makes her eminently notable as an integral part of current US military interrogation policy, particularly in relation to the War on Terror. Whether she was a mere 'instrument' of implementation of the policy, as was Lynndie England, is neither here nor there. This person is notable for these reasons and an article is warranted. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article also says that Capt. Woods was not at the hearing. So now we have an article about a woman who was not charged with any crimes or offenses, not court martialed, and not called as a witness. The Washington Post reported that she told investigators that she objected to the CIA being there, but she was over ruled. [2]. Joaquin Murietta 14:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Lack of NPOV is NOT a valid criteria for listing on AfD. It should have a NPOV tag instead and a listing on WP:PNA, with discussion on the talk page. I have concerns about some of the wording and claims in the article, but I see nothing there that cannot be sorted out. This person is notable as someone instrumental in establishing US military interrogation policies in Afghanistan, and Iraq, at Bagram and Abu Ghraib ([3]). --Cactus.man ✍ 09:46, 16 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.