Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristian Menchaca

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 redirect both to June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. According to our usual practices, we would not make a separate article here. I personally might disagree with that, but the consensus for our practice is clear & my personal view irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Kristian Menchaca

Kristian Menchaca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual whose death is tragic and sacrifice in the service to his country is commendable, probably does not meet our guidelines for inclusion per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, same goes for Thomas Lowell Tucker. These two soldiers are notable for the event: June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. EricSerge (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the second article as part of this AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect both to June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the event that they were (tragically) involved in. No notability outside of the WP:ONEEVENT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect both as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep both. There are quite a few articles about POWs, under similar circumstances, on Wikipedia that have not been marked for deletion, such as Keith Maupin and Ahmed Kousay al-Taie. Both of the articles that have been marked for deletion have a wealth of informative content and are properly sourced. On a personal note, I have put a lot of work and effort into both of these articles, hoping to make them into the best articles that they can possibly be, and would be dismayed if they were to be suddenly erased off of Wikipedia. See: On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The question you have to ask yourself is: are these men any more notable than anyone else who has been killed in war? And if so, why? I can see no reason why they should be. Deaths of westerners in war today are heavily reported in the media. Deaths of non-westerners generally are not. Even deaths of westerners generally were not before modern times. So, another question. Are westerners killed in war today more notable than non-westerners killed and in war and are they more notable than people killed in, say, the Second World War? The answer, clearly, is no. Therefore, generally, we have to say that people killed in war who are only "notable" for being killed in war are not notable enough for their own articles on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Necrothesp, what makes this article (and the others) unique is that they are articles on soldiers/marines who were captured (held as POWs) and were missing for a time. That is what makes them unique to the other deaths in both the Iraq War and Afghanistan War. Not sure what the rant about westeners/non-westerners has to do with this (unless there were other servicemen from non-western countries involved in these wars that were captured and executed also). I say keep all of these articles.Redjacket3827 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • No rant whatsoever, thank you very much, just a statement. So, let me get this straight, would you advocate having an article on every serviceman throughout history who has been captured and executed? If not, why not? Why is this more significant than soldiers who've just been killed in combat? Are soldiers who are captured and executed more notable than those who are shot in battle? Why? My point is simply that certain editors seem to believe that because these men were Americans and were executed, they are somehow more notable than other soldiers (American or otherwise) who have been killed in other ways. I'd like it to be explained why this should be the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Redjacket3827. This incident was very big news in the United States when it happened seven years ago. Granted, obviously, there shouldn't be an article about every casualty of war, especially if they haven't been reported widely. However, I believe these two articles warrant a spot on Wikipedia, due to their notably, as a result of not only being killed, but the manner of their deaths, in which they were captured, tortured, executed, mutilated and had videos posted of the entire ordeal on the internet, which was covered widely by both the American and international press. Best regards. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Indeed they do warrant a spot - in the article on the incident, as they have no "presence", as it were, outside of the incident. There is no encyclopedic information on them bar that on the incident itself, so, per WP:ONEEVENT, redirecting their names to the article on the incident is what is called for here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2013 (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.