Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fermatprime (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 3 November 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

George Alexander (US Army soldier)

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • Speedy delete NN plus not encyclopedic Ejrrjs | What? 00:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong keep real person, real soldier. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 01:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And really non-notable. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • keep, encyclopedic. Kappa 04:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOT.--nixie 04:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong delete, WP:NOT a memorial. This shouldn't even be a difficult decision. Proto t c 11:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep at least as notable as Jessica Lynch, his name has been all over the media.  ALKIVAR™ 19:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Alexander_(US_Army_soldier)&oldid=27213628"