Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

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 KeepJForget 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Several reasons:

• Unreliable or self-interested sources dominate the media coverage of the controversy
• The possibility of a conclusion based new information from sources regarded as reliable by the consensus of WP editors seems remote
• The event ultimately is not notable since reliable sources do not regard the original atrocity stories to have had independent corroboration
• Edit-warring over too little reliable information from independent sources with asymmetry of credulity and skepticism on the part of editors towards sources which support/oppose the Iraq War
• Doubt that Scott Thomas Beauchamp (the original author) stands behind the stories
• No consensus yet that this is a bona fide journalistic hoax which would support its notability patsw 20:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the WP:Notability guideline is that there should be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That is met in spades. A few 'POV' or 'Disputed' tags needed I guess. Springnuts 22:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment That there are reliable sources independent of the subject is exactly what's in dispute on the talk page. If you believe that such sources exist in spades, please share them on the talk page. patsw 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Easily meets WP:NOTE. Some editors' protests not withstanding, there are reliable sources. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because there is edit warring does not mean an article should be deleted; dispute resolution exists for that. The reliability of sources is cause for concern but not for deletion. And whether the "original atrocity stories" have merit is wholly irrelevant to whether the controversy is notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment What is meant by merit means in this context? Nearly every fact is a matter of dispute. The "original atrocity stories are true" side have their own set of facts and are contradicted by the facts of the "original atrocity stories were a hoax" side. I don't believe there are any facts of significance reported in the original atrocity stories which are not is dispute. patsw 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment If we deleted all articles in which facts are in dispute, we would have a pretty short encyclopedia. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS to see how to handle attribution of differences of opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The ostensible reason for nomination is because it's so controversial, which is no reason for an article to get deleted. Patsw clearly thinks this is notable because he's contributed to both the article and the talk page, though the former revisions were reverted. Most of us aren't happy about the way this article has been edited, but that's no reason to delete it, just to improve it. There are enough reliable sources about the controversy to write an accurate article. Some people would like to include every source the minute it becomes available, unreliable or not, while others would like to leave everything out that doesn't support their conspiratorial viewpoint. But right now we know the following: These stories got published. TNR stands by them, excepting one change of venue and admitting that STB refused to stand by the stories while being interviewed with an Army representative present. The Army found the stories to be lies after a thorough investigation, while TNR says it hasn't finished (or shared the methods of) its investigation, blaming the Army for being unable to do so. These are facts with reliable sources that aren't under dispute. I'm sure there are many things patsw and I agree on — after all, his edits to the article were done to properly source the article and were only reverted due to some imagined slight to TNR; I could understand why their being reverted would be frustrating. But nominating this article for deletion seems to me to be akin to taking your ball and going home when the game doesn't go the way you like it. Just play by the rules and illegitimi non carborundum. Calbaer 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• strong keep easily meets notability with 20 references Neozoon 23:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously notable. The editors should try to realize that this is an article about the controversy - not about the truth or falsehood of the original allegations. They should document the controversy - who said what when - and let readers draw their own conclusions. Wikipedia cannot and should not try to determine which side is true. Editors can and should summarize the elements of the controversy. Sbowers3 23:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - has received coverage in major media enough to be obviously notable, and the reference list is fairly solid. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there are several reliable sources mentioned in the article and this is a significant event. Ronnotel 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This entire AfD is a puerile violation of WP:POINT. --Eleemosynary 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep Arkon 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I'd never heard of this event before, but one look at the article shows it easily passes Wikipedia's requirements of reliable sources and notability. Just because the facts of the case are disputed does not mean the case is not notable - whether the reports were a hoax or not, the story about them has become sufficiently well-known to deserve an article on Wikipedia. It looks like almost everyone else here agrees, and if no one makes a decent argument for deletion within the next few hours I think this AfD should be closed early as an obvious Keep. Terraxos 02:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I too had never heard of this until I read the AfD and the article - and I agree close early. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 07:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, obviously. The usual cabal seems at it again. DBrnstn 02:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I realized this would not be a popular AfD, but the disconnect for me is that assertion made in many of the above votes that the were many reliable sources without self-interest in this story. What are they? Even Ronnotel mentioned on the talk page that both TNR and the Army are sources but self-interested ones. I ask again for people to cite those other sources without a self-interest in the controversy on the talk page. I have been persuaded that even if there is no conclusive evidence to prove the original atrocities stories were true, or to prove them to be a hoax, the controversy has gone on long enough for it to be permanently cemented into the pages of history as notable. patsw 04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. That this is controversial is the reason that there's an article. If he had written privately there would be little or no controversy, but he didn't, and now it is. htom 18:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. When soldiers relay their stories, they are restricted as to the content of what they can say. However this soldier does not defamate the US or his leadership, he merely tells a story of events that have affected him. These boys fight for freedom of speech, and they are putting their lives on the line every day. The contraversy is a result of someone taking offense in the details, while it speaks volumes, because the writer gives a candid raw emotional story supported by his comrads. The fact that it is a contraversy is the reason it is here and should remain, the contraversy is not whether the events happened but whether the soldiers have the right to speak about it. The issue of free press and freedom of speech should not be buried when the issues are like open sores screaming to be addressed, to be debated by future generations who can do nothing to change the direction of our nation. — Linz1works 23:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is about how Beauchamp fabricated stories, you understand that, correct? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Linz1works, please ignore the above taunt by Steven Andrew Miller. His usual attempt to "frame the debate" has, once again, failed. --Eleemosynary 07:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Again, controversy is actually an argument for inclusion, not deletion. Kayobee 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong DELETE: Unreliable or self-interested sources dominate the media coverage of the controversy, mostly opinion blogs. I see very little journalistic coverage and mostly op-ed commentaries from opinion journals zines like The Weekly Standard, NRO, and The New Republic. Also, Kurtz with the Post is not a journalist but an opinion writer. Serious NPOV article. Luigibob —Preceding comment was added at 12:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid grounds for deleting an article.
• Keep - Certainly meets WP:NOTE and the sources cited do meet WP:RS. I don't think this AfD proposal was well founded. Edit warring should be handled using WP:DR procedures, not AfD. - Neparis 18:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly move/redirect to Scott Thomas Beauchamp. The controversy is certainly notable enough, and there are reliable sources to verify sufficient factual material to keep the article. Argyriou (talk) 23:44, 1 November 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.