Talk:Jamie Murphy (soldier)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] From VfD

• The comment on cleanup was "will there be an article on every person, US, Canadian and Iraqi, killed in Iraq?". If people really want to write these sort of articles can we find a way of putting them in the 911 memorial wiki? It's certainly true that Afghans and Iraqis would never get an article and therefore I don't think the existance of articles on the small number of soldiers killed, but not on the larger number of locals can be NPOV. Perhaps we should make policy that if you are famous only for dying then you are not encyclopedic. Secretlondon 14:15, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Among the things Wiki can be is a little time capsule. I would like it a lot if we could do more obits. Paul, in Saudi
    • Wikis might be like that. But this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. And just dying in service doesn't make you encyclopedic. Delete. -- JeLuF 19:43, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [See why in discussion above]-- JeLuF 19:43, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you are famous only for being killed while valiantly serving your country then you are encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 15:56, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete.. No you aren't. You're only encyclopedic if information about you is useful to people who didn't know you. This information isn't. Prawn 20:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I neither see how that is necessary for something to be "encyclopedic" nor do I see how it is necessarily true about this person. Furthermore, such criteria would eliminate many pages which are currently kept, such as city pages. Anthony DiPierro 06:55, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry if I'm getting this wrong, it's been a long frustrating day of crashes and timeouts, but are you in fact saying that you think personal information that is of no use to the world at large is suitable for an encyclopedia? Bmills 16:24, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • If it's definitely useful to no one, then it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. But if it might be useful to anyone, then it is suitable for an encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 21:41, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [See why in discussion above] Prawn 20:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless we're going to list every single person who has died in Afghanistan, what makes this person worth keeping? RickK 19:57, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Let's list every single person who has died in Afghanistan. Anthony DiPierro 06:56, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Del, respectfully. I denounce the gratuitous callousness toward a specific recent decedant expressed in some of these deletion votes, especially as it is expressed not privately but in a public forum accessible to his comrades at arms and loved ones. But WP is neither for recording real heroes nor for recording fake heroes, unless they are famous by our usual standards. --Jerzy 02:35, 2004 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • delete, nonfamous. --Jiang
  • Delete, must surpass some threshold of "famousness". --Fuzheado 07:02, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove, but someone keep a copy for if/when "wiki obituaries" gets started. --Carnildo 08:26, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Copy kept at [1]
  • Keep. Clearly verifiable, VERY IMPORTANT individual. Jack 11:53, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• • Delete. non-encyclopedic. Bmills 11:59, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • delete, nonfamous. Tannin
  • Delete. Good for m:Wikimorial. --ESP 00:34, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, like we delete the September 11 people. It's a sad story, but not useful for an encyclopedia. Adam Bishop 04:30, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If over a thousand people attended his funeral I think "significant" would be a good word to describe him. -Branddobbe 21:04, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Unlike a WWII soldier or September 11th victim many thousands of inches of newspaper columns have been written about him and his demise. This makes him important enough to keep. - SimonP 21:30, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Google on "jamie murphy soldier" returns 18,500 hits. I'd call that famous. --zandperl 15:06, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Without a doubt the best argument to keep this. The death of this soldier was an important event (at least locally) in Canada. Paul, in Saudi
    • Perhaps someone could add the cultural impact on Canada to the article? RickK 05:00, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't see this as being any more of an impact than the four who were killed by American friendly fire (whose names I have already forgotten). Adam Bishop 05:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree completely, and just as there should be an article on the friendly fire incident there should also be one on Jamie Murphy's death. Since Murphy is only one person we might as well have the article under his name, unless a better title presents itself. - SimonP 05:15, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Why was this deleted from the VfD before the 7 day waiting period was passed? RickK 04:46, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rick, VfD is only 5 days now. It has been that way for months. Angela. 07:11, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)