Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:57, 10 August 2013

Rob Wyda

Rob Wyda (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)

BLP1E, does not meet GNG. The assumption seems to be a BLP1E relating to being involved with Guantanamo Bay. However, he wasn't the counsel-in-charge in any of the cases, he's not the Judge Advocate General, and he wasn't the only judge at Bagram. As he was a sitting district judge in the US at the time (per article), he could not have spent considerable time there. He was also not the only prosecution assistant. I did find a source, but it's wholly publicity-based, and even it does not make much mention of his service. Of the sources in the article, 1 and 2 are dead links, 3 gives him one sentence out of an entire newsletter from 2004 (and the website is private as of 2009), and 4 is an obit. MSJapan (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply to dead people. The "BLP" part of the policy which has been cited actually stands for Biographies of Living People. -- Kendrick7 05:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - How is that a reason to keep? WP:BIO1E would apply, and the crux of both of them is notability for one event. They are the same policy. MSJapan (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Being elected as a District Judge three times, as well as his military service in the Navy's Judge Advocate General's Corps, as well as his brief statewide campaign for a vacant seat on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, have each been covered in multiple independent WP:Reliable Sources. -- Kendrick7 00:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment None of those positions confers notability, and he was actually (and clearly indicated as being) in the Naval Reserve JAG, so I hope you didn't change that. Those groups are administered differently and have entirely different people as commanders.MSJapan (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, he was in the reserves, but he was called into active service at least twice. I also added that he served on the Criminal Investigation Task Force. -- Kendrick7 18:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment You clearly don't understand deployment, then. Deployed reserves are still reserves; active duty does not change their status, e.g., Wyda was not transferred from reserve JAG to Navy JAG and commissioned there; he was always in reserve JAG (as the newsletter indicates) because the NR Chief JAG pictured therein is not the same one as we have an article on for regular Navy. Moreover, active service alone does not confer notability (see WP:SOLDIER, which Wyda doesn't meet either). MSJapan (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete No indications of notability, and one of several articles on (then in this case) living people created by Geo Swan as WP:COATRACKs to criticise the Guantanamo Bay prison camps. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Be that as it may, I've now extensively cleaned up and re-sourced the article in light of this AFD discussion. I didn't notice any criticism of Gitmo; the article rather reflects that Judge Wyda was quite proud of his work there. -- Kendrick7 01:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment No, he means the article author created the article to voice his own criticism. Also, none of Wyda's coverage extends outside of local news - everything is in Pittsburgh or the local county. Objectively, however, in almost all of the sources (save "Wyda out" and the one posthumous article), Wyda himself is providing the information in the articles. Therefore, the sources fail GNG because they are not "independent of the subject". His election margin is trivia which does not affect his notability, nor does withdrawing from a campaign. MSJapan (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Claiming that newspapers are not "independent" of a person purely by virtue of interviewing that person is as strained a reading of WP:GNG as I've ever seen. -- Kendrick7 18:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - When every substantial piece of information about the subject is supplied directly by the subject in conversation with the reporter, that material is not independent of the subject (it's likely not neutral, either). I could claim anything I wanted about myself consistently (like this actual situation). Note that independent verification found otherwise. That is why it's not really reliable - no reporter has ever done research to verify what Wyda did or said; they all spoke to him directly and used whatever he said. MSJapan (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• The article appears to have originally been created to provide a platform for posting this guy's rather unattractive comments regarding Guantanamo Bay (which was a high proportion of the article's content). The correct place for this would have been in a central article on the Guantanamo Bay regime and related trials in which they could have been placed in whatever context exists. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable enough either as a civilian lawyer or as a military officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of independent press coverage shown in the article and notable for Bagram and Guantanamo, so not BLP1E. JASpencer (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates