Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle J. d’Entremont

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 Delete. android79 15:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle J. d’Entremont

A letter from an irate U.S. soldier. Having a Livejournal doesn't make you notable. Delete--Shanel 04:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• This is out of place. Unencyclopedic rant (whether anyone agrees or not.) Opinion piece that is strongly POV essay with miniscule chance of becoming Neutral POV. Delete is consistant with Wikipedia policies. Comment for conspiracy theorists - I can't seem to find this online, it either has scrolled off blogs that had Google hits, including the included link, or was otherwise removed. -- WCFrancis 04:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I found one site that stated that the article was struck at the request of the author (with the text still there with html strikeout tags surrounding it). Another said that she has been court-martialled. I have not found any confirmation and cannot find this in Google news yet. The court martial, if true, has the potential of making her notable real soon now. -- WCFrancis 05:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• See [1]. I would say delete this, we all have our bad days, and things have sucked recently for sure. But if it does turn out to be newsworthy, then someone should source it. Sdedeo 06:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At the moment it's unverifiable. If this changes before the VfD finishes, I'll change my vote. If it happens after, a new article can be created. By the way, the text is probably a copyvio. --Apyule 06:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. It looks like you blanked the text, but without putting up a copyvio tag, which complicates things. If it's copyvio, it should have a copyvio tag and go to the copyvio resolution page, rather than here in AfD. I'm not sure why you blanked the text, because that means that technically we are evaluating (for AfD purposes) a fundamentally empty article. Yes, the text can be recovered from the history, but we're supposed to be voting on the article as it presently exists. Puzzled, MCB 22:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is not actually blanked, just the copy-and-paste of the letter itself. Yes, technically, we should submit this to the copyright page, where it will sit for ten days, but sometimes it's better to just be bold. Sdedeo 00:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I mention it is because (entirely independently of the worthiness of the article, which I think is approximately nil as stated below) I don't think it's a copyvio, in that I think there's a very good Fair Use case to be made for republishing anything self-described as an "open letter" or containing other assertion that the author intends, for public policy purposes, for the work to be redistributed without limits. But, I'll pick a better case to make that argument for. :-) MCB 01:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I probably should explain why I deleted the letter from the article. The main reason that it went was that it wasn't encyclopedic. Even if the copyright status was clear, I don't think that it belongs in wikipedia. The copyright is still interesting though. Does fair use enable us to licence it under the GFDL? --Apyule 01:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I should probably state that notwithstanding the above comment, I don't think the article should stand, regardless of sourcing and verification (that she wrote it), until & unless there's some sort of actual controversy of public note here. MCB 23:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Online search of New York Times turns up nothing, so it's not big-time notable anyway. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I am becoming more suspicious of the validity of the claim of the source of this. If it were true, I would expect the signature to read "US Army Reserve Corps of Engineers" instead of "US Army Reserves Engineer Corps". The discrepancy here makes me doubt it was created by a member of the US armed forces at all. - WCFrancis 01:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as per WCFrancis. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable, not NPOV, probably not even notable ---CH (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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.