Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gus Kohntopp

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Kohntopp[edit]

Everything notable about this person is already included in a single event article except for his early career, and that information comes from a webpage (pdf) that is now dead. I recommend deleting this article and redirecting to the incident article. Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dead pdfs have online archives. I know we prefer online sources here, but if a book went out of print, would that by itself render information from the source unusable? Unlike users at wikipedia, article subjects have no presumptive right to disappear. If the fellow continues to live "in hiding," then a reader might well look to find out more than just the after-action stuff. Lots of room for expansion once he goes public again. He's notable, he's cited, and the lack of resolution to the incident and his disappearance make him notable for more than a single event, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should add that in view of the subject's absence (willing or otherwise), deleting this article may give the unintended appearance of pedia participation in any perceived cover-up activity (actual or otherwise). BusterD (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment I don't think that anyone is going to mistake Wikipedia for the US military, and if they do we can just point to this AfD to show the process which was followed and the continued existance of 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources = notability. He seems to have received rather too much coverage for this to be considered a single-event biography. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —BusterD (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would say there is too much verified biographical information to be merged/covered in the FF incident sufficiently. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the deadlink fixed, there's too much biographical information to rely solely on the article for the event. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
feh - non-notable except for the one event, we'd be deleting this vanity bio if he'd created it himself and not been in that awful friendly fire incident. Policy wise, we're unlikely to delete this, though I think we should. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If I could interject at this point...what we have here is a guy with an entirely non-notable USAF flying career, who then is involved in a single friendly fire incident, which may or not have been his fault, and from which since he has tried to disappear. Again, I suggest taking a brief synopsis of this guy's life and career and putting it in the event's article, perhaps in a footnote, and then deleting this. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with everything you've said in your first sentence. I assert that his disappearance constitutes a second event (being a notable fugitive from some kind of justice) and the nature of the unresolved incident and his subsequent disappearance make it essential that the pedia offers both positive information about him (his bio) alongside the negative (the incident), in order to offer a balanced total view. If this situation had been resolved through normal channels of inquiry, I'd agree with the deletion. The apparent coverup changes my view. I am concerned about BLP issues, but I don't see any associated with this pagespace. BusterD (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Cla68 that everything notable about this individual is in the 190th Fighter Squadron Article. This article will go no where from here and info on G.K would be best maintained in the article about the incident.--Looper5920 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT. This is a clear case of where we should write about the incident, and not the otherwise non-notable individuals involved. There doesn't seem to be anything here worth keeping which shouldn't be in 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ONEEVENT. I agree that all (or if not, the vast majority) of the content that can be written about this indidual is either linked to the friendly fire incident, or is background information on the individual that has only come into the public eye because of the incident. Also, I feel that having an article around so that 'positive' information can be provided to balance 'negative' information sounds like trying to use two POVs to make NPOV...which is not somewhere any article, let alone a BLP, should find itself. I definitely support a recreation as redirect to the incident as a plausible search term. As an alternative to outright deletion, that this article be heavily trimmed down and merged into the incident...I don't think that the article has reached such an excessive size that a paragraph or two providing some more background information on Gus, both before and after the incident. (As an aside, I would happily support a similar merge, for the same reasons, for Matty Hull, the soldier at the less fortunate end of the incident) -- saberwyn 12:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the incident is sufficiently important. And NPOV is in fact made by the inclusion of POVs from different sides. DGG (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But having an article for the purpose of holding some warm-and-fuzzy info to 'balance out' the facts of what the person is actually famous/infamous for? I thought NPOV was the neutral presentation of facts, not making this guy's life apear karmically neutral. -- saberwyn 22:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Does this bio as currently edited represent anything "warm-and-fuzzy"? To my reading, both the bio and the incident pages look pretty damning, and relatively neutral, when compared to other stuff (which I'll concede exists). Both pages seem to conclude the subject has been convicted by the U.K. inquiry in absentia (and by the U.K. media), and he's currently "in hiding", with the U.S. government refusing to participate in official inquiry, and appearing to be involved in a cover-up to protect the pilots. I see a number of well-respected wikipedians who've been involved over a considerable time with both pagespaces, including the nominator of this proceeding. That we're addressing "karmic" sensitivities is something nobody else seems to be suggesting, and casts negative light on the important work these wikipedians have done here. I don't think we should be tinkering with anyone's perception of karma, as it regards a BLP article. BusterD (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'keep per Ryan. There's enough information on Kohntopp that it would be difficult to merge this into the article on the incident. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a reminder, WP:ONEEVENT states that that the number of references is unimportant if they are all about a single incident, and that separate articles on individuals involved in incidents are only appropriate when the incident is historically significant. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Exactly at whom is this reminder aimed? Closing admin? I see exactly two users in this discussion with less than 10K edits (me, and I've been editing since 2005; and Ryan4314, who's been editing since 2007). BusterD (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incident in question was one of the most infamous friendly fire incident in the ongoing ~~Afghan~~Iraq war. Yeah, that fits historically signficant. Furthermore, some of the sources about Kohntopp such as "From Stealth to Southwest" were written before the friendly fire incident occurred. It would take work, but one might even be able to get him to satisfy WP:BIO without regard to the incident. So ONEVENT/BLP1E are not that relevant here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The incident in question was from the 2003 invasion of Iraq, not the Afghan war. Cla68 (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I knew that. Need more sleep clearly. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2009 (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.