This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Astanhope (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 2 May 2010 (→Ehren Watada: Keep, Baby, Keep!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:35, 2 May 2010 by Astanhope (talk | contribs) (→Ehren Watada: Keep, Baby, Keep!)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Ehren Watada
AfDs for this article:- Ehren Watada (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)
Was nominated 4 years ago and closed with no consensus. This is WP:BLP1E. Watada was completely non-notable before being charged with the crimes and has done nothing notable since his trial ended. His case was covered by numerous sources, but everything comes back to a single event. I do not view trials, appeals etc as seperate events. They are all part of one event, his refusal to deploy.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep- BLP1E is about people who otherwise lead private lives. Generally speaking, people who do half hour interviews on a nationally syndicated radio show aren't trying to maintain private lives. Also, a quick NPR search shows the story "What Does Watada Case Mean for Military Law?", indicating that there is more to just this story than just a "refusal to deploy".Umbralcorax (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- His interviews have been about....yeah, his one event. What effect his case may or may not have on military law really isn't relevent. The case itself may (or may not) be notable, that doesn't make him notable. His sole claim to notability is all connected to one event, his refusal to deploy. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, this article fails WP:ONEEVENT / WP:BLP1E (if a long, drawn out one). Even if it strengthens the case for WP:BLP1E if the person remains low profile, not doing does not necessarily make one notable for anything other than that the one event. Per WP:ONEEVENT, this deserves to be and is already mentioned in Opposition to the Iraq War, but shouldn’t get its own article. Novaseminary (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment.
- Short comment: avoid BLP1E issues and move to ] or similar article title, and then test for notability.
- Long comment: I have read the previous AfD and would argue that both it and this current AfD miss a crucial point: all the to-and-fro about whether Lt Watada is notable or not is not what should be under discussion; it is the Watada case is what should be under discussion. OK, lets assume Watada fails BLP1E. Some legal matters are long and drawn out without being notable. Some legal matters hit hot-button issues without being notable. Some legal matters have extensive media coverage, and while possibly passing WP:GNG, are still not notable. The Watada matter is long and drawn out, hits hot-button issues and has extensive media coverage. Move to ] or similar article title, and then test for notability
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I kind of thought that when I said "The case itself may (or may not) be notable, that doesn't make him notable", that indicated I thought there was a possibility that the case itself could be notable. A great many cases are like that. Case in point Katz v. United States is a landmark case, far more important than this case will ever be, yet Charles Katz doesn't qualify for an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep- His story was important 4 years ago and his inclusion here, indefinitely, in the Misplaced Pages will ensure the future existence of this valuable reference piece. --AStanhope (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)