Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hadsell

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 redirect to Music in psychological operations. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hadsell[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. Has not been improved since June 2010. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - Article is well cited, however the event which the Sergeant was quoted about was not about him as a primary subject; therefore, any relevant and referenced information should be redirected to an appropriate article such as Psychological_warfare#United_States, Psychological Operations (United States) or Operation Iraqi Freedom. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possible merge) almost all the cites come from one notable event and that is his comment on how to break the will of people through the use heavy metal music. The same information is now in Music in psychological operations#Instances_of_use. Should this information be moved or merged with the articles RightCowLeftCoast has pointed out? IQinn (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not notable. V7-sport (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not notable? Did you read my and RightCowLeftCoast comment? There are obviously some notable information to preserve. Do you have any opinion what target article would be the most appropriate for this information? IQinn (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I agree with IQuinn that the material does not justify a separate article; and also that his role was significant enough that a merge & redirect is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music in psychological operations. Yet another instance where the individual is not notable in an of himself, but has had some impact on a notable event. His oft-quoted statement would be best at the target article, and a redirect there is cheap and might be a reasonable search term. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bahamut. Anotherclown (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- (1) Hadsell is not a {{blp1e}}, as he was involved in several events. (2) Not only was Hadsell widely quoted at the time, but he continues to be quoted over half a dozen years later. (3) Many commentators quote Amnesty International, and state or imply that Hadsell's interrogation techniques were torture. Geo Swan (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that looks to me exactly what {{blp1e}} is all about. Not only that he is only known for this comment it is already in Music in psychological operations#Instances_of_use. That some have also commented on his comment does not give him notability either. You see his notability established as being a commentator or under what category WP:PEOPLE? I personally think a redirect to the information about his comments (that many have agreed on are notable) is more than satisfactory and additional information can be merged to the place where they belong and where they can be brought into context. IQinn (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2011 (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.