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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Maupin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I realise that I am going to come under fire for the nomination of a young gentleman killed going about his daily employment in the service of his country. I would like to set emotion on one side, however, and consider whether he was notable by all of our usual criteria for notability. That he is dead does not, per se, make him notable. The reports of his death do not, per se, make him notable. That he died in the service of his nation does not, per se, make him notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial, and I perceive this article as a very reasonable emotional reaction to a deeply unpleasant circumstance, but not as an encyclopaedic article. No disrespect to his memory or family is intended by this nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep — This seems to meet the requirements put foward in WP:NOTABILITY, particularly in basic criteria and additional criteria. For example, it states:

The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

• I'm inclined to think he is notable by these standards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:BIO1E. Thousands of troops have died in Iraq, and many of them were decorated. Some deaths made the news more than others, but here I don't really see how this particular one had an impact that would be notable under the guidelines. Some of the info could be merged into an appropriate Iraq war article.--Boffob (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Many thousands have died, comparatively not many were featured major news and hardly any have been featured because they were killed on camera. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - That still falls under WP:NOT#NEWS.--Boffob (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. There's plenty of news coverage, but, on the other hand, WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. On balance, I think, this particular death - capture and videotaped execution - combined with the award of the moderately important Bronze Star Medal is sufficiently distinct from "routine" war deaths that it warrants coverage in an article. Alternatively, merge in parts to an appropriate article, such as about the military operation.  Sandstein  08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I understand the nominator's concerns, but I think this article passes our notability criteria - he's not notable solely because he died in Iraq, but because of the coverage of his capture, the disputed tape apparently showing his death, and the subsequent search and discovery of his body, which adds up to notability in my view. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge in theory, but I don't think there's an appropriate target. Terraxos (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Sandstein's comments. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.