Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Fenton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. All arguments on both sides taken into account. Metamagician3000 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Fenton

Matthew Fenton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Technical nomination only. IP editor 203.10.224.58 (talk • contribs • count) started the nomination process with the following comment: "(AFD tag...Individual in non-notable other than being killed in Iraq...this page only serves as a memorial)" Eastmain 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Eastmain 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable member of the military. A quick review of the IP's talk page may be helpful. --Eastmain 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - member is only memorable for having died in combat. The page is a memorial. As for my talk page...it is a dynamic IP and is accessed by over 2000 people. Should have no bearing on the fact that this page exists solely as a memorial and the member is in no way "Notable". --00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Very sad, but so is every one of the 2,000+ deaths. Wikipedia is not a memorial.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as I can't see any particular reason to differentiate this person from any of the other casualties of the conflict in Iraq. If somebody makes a movie or book about this person, that would change things. FrozenPurpleCube 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No real indication of notability in this article. Mwelch 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Per the discussion and sources cited below, his family and hometown indeed seem to have created enough press to push him into notability. However, since it's those media-covered actions of such subsequent to his death that have separate him from just "any other soldier sadly killed", the article should be written to note such. Mwelch 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep it seems non notable until the end when we get the governor and the lowered flags and the references which seem primarily about him. I'm not sure what makes him stand out, but he seems to anyway. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. In reviewing such orders,[1] it looks like Gov. Corzine does that for pretty much all New Jersey natives killed in Iraq. Mwelch 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to meet WP:BIO per refs section and [2] --W.marsh 01:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per W.marsh. Sr13 (T|C) 03:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't see notability over any other soldier killed in the line of duty. Goodnightmush Talk 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't seem notable. Steve 03:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bryson CitiCat 04:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, yes very sad, but not notable. Send notice of AfD to whitehouse.gov --killing sparrows 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & above. All soldiers' deaths are tragic, all are (in ideal circumstances) reported in the media and recognized by authorities, but not all are notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough per above. Davewild 07:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Semper Fidelis but Wikipedia is not a memorial--Looper5920 10:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously a hero, as is anyone else who fights for their country. However, he fails the notability requirements. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Cyrus Andiron 12:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • How does he not meet the guideline you linked to? It says "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." and above I linked to evidence that such works exist. So clearly he does meet the inclusion guideline... people just are choosing to ignore it here. --W.marsh 13:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment The United States lost over 407,000 soldiers in World War II. A very substantial portion of them (99.9%) do not have their own articles. We've lost over 2,000 soldiers in the current war. Does every one of them deserve a page? Dead solderies are a tragedy, but they are only remembered for a few weeks (by the media) and then we move on. I understand the desire to celebrate and memorialize every life lost in the war. But, this is not the place for that. I think we need to keep in mind, that if he were still alive, he probably would not have a page. The fact that he died put him in the news for a couple of weeks. That does not substantiate his notability. I think we should focus on the long term. As sad as it is, he will not be remembered 50 to 100 years later by the general population. --Cyrus Andiron 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think they do "deserve an article", if sources exist. Your argument was effectively that sources didn't exist, I was just pointing out that they do. I think people should be aware that deleting these articles does go against the letter of WP:BIO. Like I say below, I understand why people take that position, but I don't personally feel it's necessary at this point. --W.marsh 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep To say that the daeth of a soldier is not notable is very irresponsible. He is a part of history and current events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcool116 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment In which case every single soldier ever who is KIA is notable. That's a lot of people. EliminatorJR Talk 14:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Then it's a good thing Wikipedia doesn't have a size limit. --W.marsh 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial. That being said, perhaps the Keep !voters could tell us what elements of WP:BIO this fellow fulfilled? Sorry if this sounds callous, but Sgt. Fenton was a young clerk with a high school education, no valor awards and a sparse official bio released by the military only after his death and containing little more than vitae curriculae. The article scarcely even asserts notability.  RGTraynor  16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Uh as said above, this appears to meet the core component of WP:BIO, "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent" --W.marsh 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, and I hope the closing admin keeps in mind how some of the people here don't seem to have read the article or at least won't reply to the reference section. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I likewise hope the closing admin keeps in mind selective quotations. For one thing, that core component goes on to say "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The coverage of this soldier's death asserts practically nothing more than he died in action, and such encomiums as were given are the usual ones attached to any memorial. The official policy states that "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Let's run down the list: is there a credible independent biography? Did he receive significant recognized awards or honors? Wide name recognition? Did he make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field?  RGTraynor  16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Articles were written about him by multiple publications giving non-trivial information... that's what WP:BIO requires. Attempts to bend that to require a book-length source of information on a topic to count as "non-trivial" are usually unsuccessful, as non-trivial just means enough to create more than a directory-style entry, but who knows, people might vote to ignore WP:BIO here. It's happened before. --W.marsh 17:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
            • WP:BIO is a guideline. I make no apologies for using personal judgement in addition to a guideline. It certainly does not require that an article with sufficient sources stay and there are numerous reasons that we might delete one regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
              • I know, I'm sorry if there seems to be an overly negative implication to my statements about people voting to ignore it. While I think it's slightly negative to ignore it, in that we have no size limit so no need to delete good articles that aren't "important enough", it's understandable that some people want to not follow it here. --W.marsh 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
            • That's a straw man argument. Who is asking for "book-length" sources? We're looking for something, anything, which establishes this fellow's notability beyond his untimely death. A page will do, thanks.  RGTraynor  18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
              • But that's just it... sources were presented, but it's not enough because you're imagining that the core of WP:BIO says it doesn't count if the sources are only about his "untimely death". There's no such language there, the sources meet what is actually required. --W.marsh 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment unfortunately, the problem with covering deaths is that it will lead to a systematic problem. Let's take the current war in Iraq. It's 3000 or so people now for Coalition forces. That's not bad, is it? But wait, what about Iraqi deaths? That would add 50,000 people. Most of whom won't receive coverage in US sources, and possibly not Iraqi sources, but some will. And then we have to think about other wars. There are newspaper articles covering deaths at least a hundred years back in some cases. Individual coverage of deaths in war is almost the de-facto now, is it really any different than any accident or crime victim's death? Not really no. This is a case where it's important to recognize that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy(see WP:BURO, it's not about rules, but about reasoning. And mine tells me that absent some other notability (like a television movie, or a book written about them), it's not going to work to cover deaths in war. Not here anyway, if some other site wants to do it, more power to them. FrozenPurpleCube 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What would the problem be? The Wikipedia articles could be accurate and reliable (if we include them only if sources exist), we obviously would have no problem storing them all, and their inclusion wouldn't at all harm our ability to cover "more important" topics, no one's required to spend their time editing these articles. So to say there's some impending problem waiting for when we get "too many" of these articles really isn't realistic. --W.marsh 18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, for me, it's a mix of the problem of size (think about it, this isn't just a few articles, but potentially hundreds of thousands, even millions of people if we apply the same standards to every country and war, and there are systemic bias problems that could arise from that). I also feel that such coverage would be somewhat outside the general purpose nature of an encyclopedia. There are dead people in the military who are important and notable. There are dead murder victims who are important and notable. There are even dead car accident victims who are important and notable. But not every person who died while in the military, who was murdered or had a car accident should have a Wikipedia article even if they do have reliable news coverage of them. It would be much better to have a different place for it, rather than trying to put it here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
        • But there simply is no problem of size... even if a million such articles could be sourced (I doubt it, but just for the sake of argument) it wouldn't make the servers sneeze, even with the capacity we already have sitting around going unused. Size an article takes up should never factor into why we delete that article, as it's not technically necessary. Besides, deleted articles stay on the server anyway, purges of deleted articles can occur but are rare. --W.marsh 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm quite confident that it would be easily possible (that is, based on the existence of reliable sources, not in terms of getting users to do it) to make several hundred thousand articles on dead soldiers, at least as far back as the Korean War. World War II is also quite possible, and even World War I. That's a large number, and I don't know that it wouldn't cause the servers problems actually. Wikipedia currently runs around 2 million articles in English. This would be a significant expansion of that. Certainly, there is a lot of room to grow, but that's a lot to consider. And applying the same standards to other deaths (IMO, required by NPOV) would balloon the number even further. And I can imagine it would cause user problems. With that many articles, most of them would be orphaned and unknown. That would lead to Vandalism problems being unresolved. Bad idea that. I'm willing to be flexible, and inclusionist, but I just don't see this kind of coverage as appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Maybe you should read meta:Wiki is not paper if you really think there's a technical/space saving need to delete articles... --W.marsh 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
              • It doesn't make Wikipedia wastepaper, either. The main problem with a multi-million article encyclopedia is that it would be far vaster than any corps of volunteers, however dedicated, could possibly police. Without policing, Wikipedia's credibility and usefulness is shot; it's already the case that many institutions refuse to recognize it as a useful source.  RGTraynor  19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
                • I've read it, thank you, and believe it or not, my standards for inclusion are probably wider than most people's. However I do have some limits, and since I don't imagine hundreds of thousands of people whose only notability is a short-lived bit of articles in papers because of their death is really encyclopedic, this is one of them. FrozenPurpleCube 20:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment W.marsh suggested that the sources he provided asserted Mr. Fenton's notability. I checked over the 14 sources and this what I found:

1. [3] - New Jersey newspaper article. Basically, noting that a local man was injured in combat. (May 6, 2006)

2. [4] – New York Post article that notes his death. (May 10, 2006)

3. [5] – New Jersey newspaper article that talks about a protest rally for the families of deceased soldiers. (Aug 17, 2006)

4. [6] – Another New Jersey newspaper article. This one is about how his father is now serving as a public speaker. (Aug 10, 2006)

5. [7] New Jersey newspaper article that notes that people from Mr. Fenton’s hometown are remembering him on the 1st year anniversary of his death. (May 29, 2006)

6. [8] - Web page unavailable. The synopsis indicates that it is about another deceased officer. (Sep 27, 2006)

7. [9] - North Jersey website. Talks about his death and funeral service. (May 14, 2006)


8. [10] North Jersey Website - Another article that discusses his families protest of the war. (Nov 20, 2006)

9. [11] New Jersey Newspaper article that is the exact same as the source above. (Nov 20, 2006)

10. [12] New Jersey newspaper article that talks about the protests that occurred on the anniversary of his death. Very similar to number 5. (August 17, 2006)

11. [13] New Jersey newspaper article that talks about the 1st anniversary of his death. Mentions the protests much like #10 and #5 did and that his father is a speaker now (Aug 10, 2006)

12.[14] – Same article as #7. (June 29, 2006)

13. [15] – New Jersey Newspaper. Letter to the editor, written by Mr. Fenton’s mother. (June 4, 2006)

14. "matthew%20fenton"%20iraq&img=\\na0021\2590465\14359648.html|14 Article about another Matthew Fenton who was killed in 1949. (December 3, 1949)

The only nationally recognized puiblication that mentions Mr. Fenton is the New York Post. That article mentions the fact that he died and discussed the events surrounding his death. All of the other sources are from the New Jersey area where Mr. Fenton lived. I believe that he may have notability there, but not in the rest of the country. Additionally, nothing has been written about Mr. Fenton since September of 2006. Only two of the sources provided directly deal with Mr. Fenton's death and subsequent funeral (#1 & #2). After reviewing these sources I reassert my opinion that Mr. Fenton is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. He is mentioned only once by a reputable non trivial source. The local newspaper does not carry much weight as they tend to cover all deaths of people from the area. --Cyrus Andiron 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

    • I think some of the coverage is more meaningful than you say, such as the NYPost story, which does more than note his death. Anyway, the closing admin will... hopefully... take all of this into account. This is not a "battle" I really expect to win, it's just my opinion that there's no harm in including this article, as I've argued above. --W.marsh 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Geeze, that comes off as rather trite. See above where I explained why this information is verifiable and notable, specifically so no one would cite that little page (which I wrote parts of). I guess I should have repeated myself loudly for people who just look for keywords and pounce. --W.marsh 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP does not create a page for every soldier KIA and nor should it. Since this is not just a US-based work, I doubt that similar raw material for, say, a Swedish soldier killed in the line of duty who was otherwise non-notable, would pass muster either. I believe that everyone who laid down his or her life for their country should be honoured, but WP is not the place to do it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While his death is sad, and should be memorialized, unless we are planning to create articles about every war casualty, I can't support inclusion without evidence that this person was notable in something other than his death. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I see a lot of irrelevant discussion here. Per WP:N the subject meets the inclusion criteria based on the number of independent non-trivial sources which provide information. Whether it is fair or unfair that not all soldiers in all armies or other victims of war receive notice, is irrelevant to this decision. There are no criteria which determine that national media is more credible than local media. --Kevin Murray 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I examined the sources in one of my posts above. There is only one non trivial source, please see the examination above. The other 13 are articles were created by local newspapers, the sort of coverage you would expect out of the death of someone who lived there. Additionally, the following comes directly from WP:ATTRIBUTION: In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. The key word there is mainstream. The New York Post is the only mainstream newspaper that cites Mr. Fenton. Therefore, there is only one non trivial notable sources that refers to him. --Cyrus Andiron 00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kevin Murray. Well said, Kevin! --ElKevbo 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Technically the more recent wording at WP:N allows for a single source to establish notability; however, the source must be significant and there must be corroboration of neutrality and veracity. This source might be a bit weak here. However, the synergy between the small national coverage and the more numerous local sources may be enough to put this over the border. --Kevin Murray 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This topic comes up occasionally a subject clearly meets WP:N, but editors come up with their own criteria, along the lines of "Wikipedia cannot have pages for every KIA soldier or Holocaust victim or whatever." It is true that we can't, but we can have articles on all of those that meet WP:N or ATT. The idea of having these guidelines is that we don't have to be subjective as to what constitutes a notable soldier or any other type of person. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding the possibilities of contravening WP:CSB, there's a similar AfD for a non-US serviceman going on here at the moment EliminatorJR Talk 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia can't have an article for every soldier that died in action. IronChris | (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets standards for inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • NoNDelete Just another person killed in war. Articles covering him are from a lesser known paper mourning a local person. Definitely doesn't meet notability. Reywas92Talk 01:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment That is only one source. WP:N says there need to be multiple non trivial sources in order to assert notability. The other 13 remaining sources do not assert notability as they were local news coverage (to be expected in regards to the death of a resident) or did not deal with Mr. Fenton himself as shown above. --Cyrus Andiron 11:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. It's tragic but dying in a war is not unusual. There is no evidence presented that this person meets any of our established inclusion criteria. The coverage above does not satisfy our established criteria in this case. Wikipedia is also not WikiNews. Rossami (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Is the subject of multiple published workd from reliable sources. I see the Wikipedia is not a memorial as if a person's death negate's our primary inclusion standards. This isn't an article about an editor's grandpa who otherwise would not meet WP:BIO. --Oakshade 05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment I see what you mean - the criterion I used was to ask whether, if he had not died, would his life have met WP Guidelines? And now, was there something about his death that was any more remarkable than every other soldier who was KIA? I'm not seeing it, I'm afraid. I don't wish to appear heartless - I admire all members of armed forces who are defending their respective countries, I am just trying to interpret the guidelines here. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:NOT (not a memorial). >Radiant< 08:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's sad that he died, but wiki is not a memorial. The references establish his existence, so we have verifiability, but beyond dying in the war, there is no establishment of any real notability. Mere existence is not enough to justify an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the non-trivial coverage he has received in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a memorial applies only to articles that don't meet our notability guidelines. Otherwise, we'd have no articles on any deceased persons. Most of the arguments to "delete" above promote a subjective/personal standard of notability that is not supported by Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Black Falcon 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Has anyone here actually read the article other than looking at the references section? I would be hard pressed to believe it. Starting from the intro, where his notability is based on having "died from wounds", there is nothing that states his notability other than the fact that the NYT mentioned his death. Could it be based on the fact that he is from New Jersey and it might be worth a mention based on where the majority of their subscribers live? You will be hard pressed to find anyone who has contributed more information on the United States Marine Corps on Wikipedia then me but I do not think this Marine rates an article. I mourn his death but this page is a memorial pure and simple and does not belong here. --Looper5920 01:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Notability, as defined at Wikipedia as a standard for including or excluding articles, is proven through the presence or absence of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject. I'm unsure why this Marine received as much coverage as he did, but the fact is that he did. We as editors shouldn't make personal subjective judgments on the notability of persons, but rather to convey judgments made by others in published works. I know not wherefrom his notability (as defined outside Wikipedia) stems, but the fact that he received coverage in multiple works proves his notability. -- Black Falcon 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a memorial, and subject is non-notable. Fishhead64 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a memorial. Kusma (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claims of notability other than normal memorials for the dead. Sorry, but he's no more notable than any of the millions who have died in other wars before the advent of the internet. -- Necrothesp 22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:ATT mentions mainstream sources but I take that to mean mainstream in the sense of true, unbiased reportage. It is not a reflection of circulation numbers. To quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source" Unless we can make the case that these sources are unreliable, we should keep. JodyB 00:46, 17 April 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.