Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Yettaw (2nd nomination)

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, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Yettaw[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the subject of this BLP's having been involved in notable events (namely, the "Suu Kyi trespasser incidents") he yet remains, at least to this point in time, a non-public person of no notability independent from those events, whose biographical details gleaned from press reports seem rather speculative and gossipy to me. [BTW, note that I could have simply left "John Yettaw" as a redirect to the article about the event and simply removed the gossipy and heavily speculative material from out of the biographical section at that article, but instead I chose to leave this biographical material here and nominate it for deletion in order to ensure more editors review such a determination; anyway, I hope the avenue I've taken here isn't deemed to be too irregular.] ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. (Also see Talk:John Yettaw#I have nominated this article for deletion..., Talk:Suu Kyi trespasser incidents#Biography section problems and Wikipedia:Coatrack#The_Attack_Article.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Suu Kyi trespasser incidents. This dumb sonovabitch wasn't independently notable outside of ruining her chance for freedom. Mandsford (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert to its previous form. Please review Wikipedia:NOTABILITY. The Yettaw article passes the test: A) "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content; B) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline; C) "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability; D) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.; E) "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. This article meets each of those guidelines. The article has no original research, all citations are from independent, reliable sources that are not published by Yettaw, and the article violates nothing in What Wikipedia is Not. Moreover, this article is well-referenced, accurate and details a historic and influential series of events. Kingturtle (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kingturtle. DES ^(talk) 15:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tony Dokoupil (Newsweek) is truly a gifted journalist----but w/regard Yettaw, too gifted, in a way, able to swell up vague recollections by John Yettaw's former family members into an ostensible background for the man. Just one example (of scores of details of this nature): Dorris Brochu (Monrovia, California) says something to the effect of that former son-in-law John Yettaw was a no-good who lay about the house all day, his contractor's license an unused piece of paper...whereas chatter I have read indicates him to have constructed and sold a number of properties in Cali and also in Missouri! In any case, IMHO, just as the former WP article for Jeffrey Vernon Merkey could not pass muster with regard to "do no harm," repetition of vaguely researched gossip about John William Yettaw is not ethical, important to be covered, necessary to be read as part of WP's line-up of encyclopedically researched and verified biographies of living persons. Yettaw remains a mystery. For example, is he a Vietnam veteran? Wikipedia and Dokoupil say no (viz):
"According to family members, Yettaw was a veteran of the Vietnam War with nearly two years of battle experience, and was once wounded in action. However, records from the National Personnel Records Center show that he was stationed in West Germany, not Vietnam"
-- whereas CNN's "American Morning" co-host/anchor Kiran Chetry says yes:
"Motivated by visions, the retired bus driver and Vietnam vet wanted to do something to bring attention to the plight of the Myanmar people. But the plan met with objections from his family."
IMO Yettaw's background pretty much remains his personal business, its not yet having passed into anything approximating "verified and accurate, public knowledge" at all. Note the quote by the associate of Yettaw's that Dirk Vanderhart and Susan Saulny (The New York Times) used in the following:
"Mr. Webb described him after the release as 'not a well man' but also added: 'I believe what happened was regrettable. He was trying to help. He’s not a mean-spirited human being.' ¶ Mr. Yettaw’s neighbors and friends said they had been praying for his safety, even while they do not fully understand what happened in Myanmar or why he went. Some thought the trip had to do with graduate studies in psychology, or perhaps a book Mr. Yettaw told them he wanted to write. ¶ 'I’ll be glad to see him back,' said one friend, Michael Assel, a retired Navy officer. 'I would not question his motives like so many people have done. In my opinion, it’s just his business. He got in trouble and for a while, it looked like he wouldn’t get home, but he did, so I’m happy about that.'"
Despite the fact that, as M.J. Stephey (Dec. 8th Time magazine) has written, Yettaw has become "a magnet for international scorn and speculation" . . .
“Wikipedia is not[...]a vehicle for propaganda[...]. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for[...s]candal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.”
---WP:NOTSCANDAL
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played an historically significant role, with a great number of major international sources to show it. the role is signifiant enough to be a major factor in any historical coverage of Burmese politics of the period. The article needs to discuss his role --the amount of personal detail in the present version seems excessive DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 21 December 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.