Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Alexander (US Army soldier)

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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). I did vote in this debate, arguing for deletion, and I still believe that this article ought to be deleted. However, there is an even split among those who want this kept and those who want this deleted. Therefore, there is no other option than to keep this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Alexander (US Army soldier)

Sad but still NN, D. ComCat 00:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep & rewrite. He's the 2000th American forces casaulty in the war, meaning he's getting quite a lot of attenion here in the States: [1] I admit it's a bit arbitrary to include him but not the other 1,999, but it's the mass media that establishes notability, and the mass media loves numbers that you can divide by 100 and 1000, much like the faux-millennium mania we had a few years back. Changed my mind, everyone else is right. Delete StarryEyes 02:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete NN plus not encyclopedic Ejrrjs | What? 00:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no memorial. Maybe mention the soldier at Cindy Sheehan, and the date at US invasion of Iraq. Gazpacho 01:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep real person, real soldier. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 01:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• And really non-notable. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete but condolences to his family. Wikipedia is not a memorial and I disagree with StarryEyes that just because he had the misfortune to be #2000 he is any more notable than the other 1999 who gave their lives. The media may be giving it press right now, but sadly by next week his name will be all but forgotten by everyone but his family, friends, and those in his unit who survived him.--Isotope23 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The article makes no assertion of notability. Even if it did, Wikipedia is not a memorial. —Cryptic (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The article's no longer a speedy candidate, but it still draws a delete from me. His 15 minutes are up. —Cryptic (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable because of the 2000 number, plain and simple. He personally is all over the news, for chrissake his name and picture is the front of CNN.com right now and I promise that its on the front of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Christian Science Monitor in 4 or 5 hours. If that isn't notability, I obviously dont understand the concept. --CastAStone 02:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I just edited the article to make it far more encyclopedic...--CastAStone 03:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • So much the worse for the press. They'll use him for couple days and then forget all about him. Gazpacho 03:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Isotope23, his fame is transitory and there is nothing special about him compared to the others who died. -- Kjkolb 03:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep, encyclopedic. Kappa 04:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT.--nixie 04:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please merging this to cindy sheehan would make no sense this person has received individual national news coverage in teh united states so if we want to be the sum of human knowledge we should include this too people might want to learn about him here Yuckfoo 05:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  Mentioning at Cindy Sheehan makes perfect sense, since she promised she would make a scene when the 2000th soldier died. It would be stupid to have an article about this person just because he got killed when he did and not an hour earlier or later. Gazpacho

• Delete. Maybe we should have a list of casualities instead though? And that list can be expanded upon a bit? Else, we *do* run into a problem every conflict where the 1st, 5th, 10th, 100th, etc. all get their own pages... also, it kinda smacks of bias in reporting... we certainly don't have a page for the 200th Iraqi.Janet13 07:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Notable. Even if he will be forgotten by the media, his death is a big media event. Take Jessica Lynch for example. Banes 09:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dying as a soldier in Iraq doesn't make a person encyclopedically notable, and being number 2000 doesn't change that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No more or less significant than the other 1999 who have died. Isotope's point above is eloquently made. Including him as encyclopedic and not the others is, in fact, rather offensive. Dottore So 10:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, WP:NOT a memorial. This shouldn't even be a difficult decision. Proto t c 11:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as Wikipedia isn't a memorial. I'm not even sure if this merits a single sentence in Iraq War. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I am sorry that he was killed, but this death is no more or less significant than the previous US deaths in this conflict; nor the >>20,000,000 deaths in combat of all nationalities in the last century. Sliggy 15:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep I understand that notability should not be established simply on the basis of numbers, however I am convinced the article should be retained. A baby being born is a regular occurence, sure, but Nevic sure got a lot of attention becuase she was the 6,000,000,000th by the UN [2]. Furthermore, Alexander should stand, in a sense, is a representative for the several hundreds of men who have lost their lives in Iraq. As the 2,000th soldier to die, he will, in my opinion, serve as a reprensentative for the 1,999 who died before him. It would be cordial to make an article about each of the brave men who died in the War in Iraq, but such is not plausible for an encyclopedia. Thus, a brief mention of Alexander - in my opinion - would give some type of recognition besides that found in the War on Terrorism articles, etc. I think that this article should be kept. Molotov (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This was a difficult decision to make. On the one hand, WP:NOT a memorial, and having the misfortune of being the Nth person to die divisible by 1000 does not automatically make one notable. So while I do not disagree with many of the reasons provided by those who wish to delete this article, I must dissent; this death has been widely covered by the media, news.google.com returns over 1,000 articles which mention this specific person by name. If the media decides to make this person a poster child for all of the other fallen soldiers in Iraq, then this person does become significantly notable, or notable enough that people may look to Wikipedia for additional information about this person. I would liken this to the Natalee Holloway disappearance case; from a distance Natalee Holloway is one of 800,000 children who are reported missing each year, yet she is notable due to the mass news coverage she received. It is too soon to tell if George Alexander will receive the same type of media attention that Holloway did, but nonetheless they are both notable because of the attention they received, thus my vote of support to include this article. Hall Monitor 17:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If Mr. Alexander's death becomes the flashpoint for an increased anti-war movement in the United States or receives a massive amount of news coverage for a prolonged period of time ala Natalee Holloway I would be inclined to agree with you Hall Monitor. Mr. Alexander would indeed be notable then, but at this point that is a crystal ball scenario and there is no credible evidence that either of those things will happen.--Isotope23 20:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The crystal ball argument is a double edged sword. Time will tell if this person will become a flashpoint or not, but right now this person is receiving a considerable amount of media attention. I have reasonable doubt that this article should or should not be deleted, and as per WP:DEL: "If in doubt, don't delete!" I respect and understand the varying arguments being presented here, but I do not necessarily agree with them. Hall Monitor 20:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough... I wasn't attacking your vote or reasoning Hall Monitor, just making a comment.--Isotope23 20:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Having his fifteen minutes of fame in the United States, apparently, but Wikipedia is also not an American newspaper. Lord Bob 19:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at least as notable as Jessica Lynch, his name has been all over the media.  ALKIVAR™ 19:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. He was doing his job. Unfotunate that he got killed but being killed doing your job doesn't make you notable. chowells 21:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'm going to change my vote. Widespread media coverage is sufficient notability. He may not be any more or less notable than the 1 999 who fell before him (let alone the Iraqis or British or other troops that have died) but maybe he can become a reminder of the sad state of our world today, in the same way that Anne Frank has come to represent the millions that died in the holocaust. Maybe after near nuclear annihilation in World War 3 someone will read this article and be more determined to put forward the ideals of people that I respect highly such as Józef Rotblat. chowells 10:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Though I am against this war and support our troops abroad, this article is unncessary.--Newyorktimescrossword 23:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Carnildo 23:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator made no effort whatsoever to support this nomination. Bryan 00:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Claiming that a person is non-notable is a valid reason to delete in black and white, in WP:CSD A7. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually A7 doesn't talk about whether a person is notable or not, it covers articles that don't claim notability. "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance". So you can't use A7 because you do or do not think someone is notable, only if the article does or does not claim notability. It's an important distinction. Rx StrangeLove 01:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm a little scrambled at the moment. WP:BIO, not WP:CSD A7, sorry. (I wasn't planning on speedying this anyway.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • My problem with this nomination is that the nominator provided absolutely no basis on which to justify the claim that he's not notable. Why should we delete something when no reason's been provided to do so? Having reviewed my vote, as I promised elsewhere, I'm sticking with "keep". Being the 2000th soldier to die fighting the Iraq war seems pretty likely to get this guy some publicity. Bryan 05:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Large main-stream media presence. Rx StrangeLove 01:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete His only notability is a statistical one. His death is no different from the 1999 which preceded his. Denni☯ 02:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• K, N. —RaD Man (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:BIO lists "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" as an acceptable reason for a biographical article. I'm not in the USA, and I don't know whether George Alexander has "achieved renown or notoriety" there (hence my not casting a keep or delete vote), but if he has, it seems reasonable that he should have an article. --Stormie 06:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  The notoriety isn't for George Alexander. It's for "the 2,000th soldier killed." That's certainly a statistic to mention in passing, but not to have an article about. Gazpacho 01:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Tragic, but not encyclopedic. Gamaliel 18:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep His death was greatly anticipated and warmly celebrated by the "anti-war" crowd. http://www.zombietime.com/2000_iraq_deaths_party/ Klonimus 05:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As others have said, just being the 2000th does not make him notable. Of course if someone created an article for the other 1999 deaths then I'd be happy to see this kept. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (or Merge to 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage) The death toll from Iraq, the press coverage of it and the controversy it has contributed to, is certainly notable. Since Alexander has gotten media attention, he would certainly be covered in an article about the controversy. I don't think it's either here or there whether that's in a separate article or as part of another article. Demi ^T/_C 06:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, with condolences to his family. 2000th death no more notable than the 1999th. Brandon39 13:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am skeptical of whether Sgt. Alexander should be notable (even though, for the record, I have been a strong, consistent opponent of this (imo) profoundly stupid war since it first became possible), because I have sympathy for the other dead who aren't being noted likewise. Still, objectively, this person is in the press, ergo notable. Xoloz 19:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete George Alexander is a hero who died so others may be free but that doesn't make the article encyclopedic or the man notable above all the other casualties of the War on Terror. May he RIP--Kalsermar 21:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Staff Sgt. George Alexander Jr and the 2,000th soldier killed are not mutually exclusive beings, they are one in the same. Seeing as how he was on the front page of my newspaper yesterday and I live nowhere near Texas or Alabama I cannot imagine how he could be considered not notable. Yamaguchi先生 00:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's verifiable, and the article is really interesting. Nothing is gained by deleting this, significant information is lost. Trollderella 00:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 2000th does not make him notable Bwithh 01:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. He has a news article on him in Wikinews. That suffices. 2,000th death doesn't make him notable, per above. I'm sure Sargent Alexander would agree that an article need not be created for him any more than an article needs to be created about the other 1,999 soldiers who perished in Iraq. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says this about memorials: Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives. This is not a random person who died, this is someone who has received significant exposure in the press as a result of being the 2,000th soldier to die since the 2003 invasion of Iraq began. Alexander was not mentioned in passing on the front page of my newspaper, he was front page headline news. Hall Monitor mentions that his name brought up 1,000 hits on Google News, and now it returns over 3,000. If you read the news article on Wikinews, you would know that it is not sufficient at all, it tells very little about him. Wikinews is not the appropriate place to talk about him in detail, that is what Wikipedia is for, so it seems perfectly reasonable that someone would want to learn more about him here. Yamaguchi先生 03:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage] and redirect. I will perform the merge if this is kept. Any other guy who simply died in Iraq would be deleted; the number 2000 is nothing special. The media circus about it can be mentioned in 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage. --SPUI (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: George Alexander was not notable for his life in any particular regard, but his death is very notable in that his death set the milestone of the 2,000th KIA in this war and is receiving a great deal of media attention which is a matter of permanent record and future interest. You can be sure that the 3,000th KIA will ignite the same kind of contentions that are being presented here. In any event, his sacrifice stands as a rallying point for opposition to this war and as such is a matter of historical importance.

• DELETE did we do the 1,000? should we do the 2,500? what about the 3,000? Williamb 09:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, being the 2000th to die is entirely arbitrary. Radiant_>|< 12:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A7. His claim to notability is?  Grue  14:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • being mentioned on CNN/FoxNews/CBS/ABC/NBC/CSPAN and in The New York Times/Washington Post/Most other AP wire outlets/and Reuters story. That notable enough?  ALKIVAR™ 14:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep mainly for reasons stated by Hall Monitor. There are plenty of verifiable facts about this man, and he's undeniably a current news item. FRS 14:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep although Wikipedia is not a memorial, the fact that he is officially the 2000th person killed in the campaign makes him notable. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 19:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this eminently notable soldier.--Nicodemus75 21:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notability established by hundreds of newspapers who have written articles on him. Others are arguing whether he deserves his notability, which is a separate question. Babajobu 22:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons already stated by several people; deserving or not, this person is notable. Please be aware that this nominator has a history of disruption on AFD, and an RFC has been opened accordingly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat. Silensor 02:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In this particular case, a nomination was almost inevitable (and sure to have some support.) Even though I voted keep, I almost procedurally nominated this the second it popped up, because this is a discussion which needs to be had. Xoloz 07:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rep is irrelevant. The AfD should be judged on its own merits. Silensor, please consider striking out that part of your comment. Brandon39 11:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Nomintor's behavior is relevant. AfDs brought to the community by editors who utilize the AfD process process in a disruptive fashion are immediately suspect. Further, this nominator has made no justifiable attempt to support his nomination. Silensor, please do not reconsider that part of your comment.--Nicodemus75 02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps there is some difference between notability in the news vs. notability in the long term (which is what an encyclopedia should preserve) Ejrrjs | What? 11:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, To draw on my own counrty, the article on Daniel Gunther details the last Canadian killed by hostile forces in 11 years (1993-2004) and Jamie Murphy was the first Canadian killed in those 11 years. The article is not set up as a memorial, and should be encyclopaedic, but should exist. Sherurcij 19:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That's part of the problem.... right now the article isn't encyclopaedic, ie biographical. It's just about the fact he is number 2000 and discussions about that in the media and some Congressmen.--Kalsermar 22:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Google now returns 18,000 hits for "george Alexander"+iraq, and thousands more if his middle initial is included, and another 26,000 for "2000th soldier"+iraq" Sherurcij 22:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment So what! Google brings up several thousand hits for Paris Hilton's chihuahua too. If not more. Williamb 12:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • actually the chihuahua brings up 280,000 I say replace it with chihuahua articles. Williamb 12:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect/Delete The story is certainly (though temporarily) notable. However, it is the story about 2000 deaths, not Alexandar, which is notable. If kept, the title should be 2000th death in 2003 Iraq War, and this article should redirect there. Further, a category should be started named Category:Milestone Deaths in American Wars in anticipation of 2500, 3000, 5000, 10000, etc. However, my suggestion is deletion, with possible redirection to Iraq War. ∴ here…♠ 05:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nice article --JAranda | watz sup 01:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable death, came here from media reports --129.173.105.28 02:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• I am the mother of his child Alexandria Alexander and I feel it is a keeper. What he has done is heartening for me and my child. He saved the lives of four other soldiers and pulled four out of a burning bradley and in the interim he died. There are so many silly things that we wish to remember but someone laying down his life for another is not worthy of keeping. How many of you saying to delete would lay down your life for someone that is not in your family, a neighbor or a stranger not many. He knew that there was a chance that he would not make it and that he would leave two beautiful children behind but inspite of the odds he still tried to save the lives of others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vamadison (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The mere fact of an individual's existence at some point in time makes an article on him worthy enough for inclusion. Kurt Weber 23:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it would help to form consensus, I would also be okay with a merge to 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage. Jacqui ^{★ 01:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep. Notable simply and totally because of media coverage. Wikipedia is not a memorial, but it is also not paper. --Fermatprime 02:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Notable. JG of Borg 03:53, 3 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.