Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Strickland (2nd nomination)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HawleyPatriot (talk | contribs) at 18:24, 13 October 2015 (Cleaned up my own spelling and typos.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ben Strickland

AfDs for this article:
Ben Strickland (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)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:Soldier. All I can find for WP:RS is a single Navy Times article discussing his whistle blowing activity and claims regarding retaliation. The remainder of the sources listed are either routine coverage of the ships he was on and just passing mentions of his name, no significant coverage. The article seems to just be a way to push the POV that he was wronged by the USCG. I don't know if he was or wasn't, but either way, the situation only garnered a single news story and an Amazon.com book that was self published (edit: by London Steverson). I thank him for his service in the USCG, but it's mostly routine service similar to thousands of other soldiers and sailors. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the first deletion was for a football coach named Ben Strickland, there a number of hits on EBSCO for that Strickland, but not for this Ben Strickland. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wiki references cited by Dual Freq do not support his argument for deletion. Dual Freq apparent obsession with Steverson on this Project Page as well as the adjacent Talk Page is an apparent red herring to distract from the subject of the article; Steverson is not the subject of this article nor even mentioned. Also to wit: "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."Panama Jones (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a good faith attempt to find sources. As I said in the nom, I found only the Navy Times article in EBSCO host using Ben Strickland Benjamin Stickland and Coast Guard. Most of the hits there are for the football coach. As for google, military corruption.com, Steverson's blog and a book he self-published. None of those meet the requirements of WP:RS. The other citations only exist because of the USCG cutter's notability mentioning routine personnel changes. I make no judgement of Stickland's claims, just his notability for inclusion per WP:GNG. It is nothing personal, not everyone needs or would want a wikipedia article. I didn't ask Ichbinalj to log in after 9 years to comment here and bring up Steverson. I have no WP:COI in this matter, I am not connected in any way to Strickland, Steverson or the Coast Guard. This is not the place to sell self-published books, promote blogs, search engine optimization or for advocacy. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Non sequitur counter-arguement. I see no selling of any book in the encyclopedia, contrary to your unsubstantiated allegations to diminish the validity of this article which not only passed muster with other editors and was approved for publication prior to your #Wikihounding / "WP:STALK" of me as a contributer from article to article I have edited or written in the past many months; apparently this particular article is just your particular pet project of the week. You claim no COI, yet continually insert yourself with an (apparent) obsession, demanding citations above and beyond what is provided in other military biographies, yet which other editors provided. All these references from what I see name the subject of article which IMO adequately "verify" the biography you were demanding "proof" to substantiate what was previously accepted. And as the Wiki references which you cite that do not substantiate your allegation indicate (and contradict your argument that this subject is not notable), a single RS is not "evidence" of a lack of notability. Panama Jones (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Soldier is the guide used for military biographies, but Strickland meets none of those criteria. Other biographies have to follow the same citation guidelines as the rest of wikipedia, especially if it is a WP:BLP. No one is stalking you, others have raised these concerns as well. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive228#Benjamin F. Strickland II regarding an earlier version. It's pretty much textbook WP:Coatracking. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Others are not following me from page to page #Wikihounding like you are. Furthermore, the "others" you claim to speak for are not here proposing deletion, nor supporting your proposal. You do not speak for anyone but yourself, so please refrain from pretending to do so. An "earlier version" is also not the subject of discussion here, so your strawman argument is irrelevant. It is apparent that those who approved this article for publication acted in good faith and in accordance with existing Wiki policy. You have failed by preponderance of evidence to prove otherwise. In fact, the sources you cite, even contradict your arguments (whose goalposts seem to shift each time anything is raised which counters you). Panama Jones (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the recommendation to delete the Ben Strickland article because the reasons given are not accurate. The book "The Case of CDR Benjamin Strickland" was not self-published. The book was written by Judge L. Steverson, USALJ (Ret). In order to be self- published, it would have had to be written by Benjamin Strickland. That would seem to be intuitively obvious. Even assuming arguendo that it was self-published, that in no way detracts from the truth or accuracy of the facts contained therein. Books are written for posterity as well as profit. Also, there appears to be an inherent bias against Amazon.com books. Thousands of great books are available from Amazon.com General Petraeus' book is available on Amazon.com. Moreover, the Claims of Whistle blower Retaliation have been accepted for redress of grievance by several Governmental Boards and Agencies set up to screen cases and to grant relief. That would render moot any allegation that Ben Strickland is not a "Whistle blower". Neither quantity nor quality of main stream media notice or the lack thereof can nullify that fact. To allege otherwise evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of the Governmental Administrative Process. I do not perceive the "sour grapes" POV (point of view) as the dominant theme of the article. To get that perception, one would have to be predisposed to look along those lines. The Commander's service was, by no means, routine. Out of 35,000 people he was one of only two people with the unique set of skills to perform a particularly high level job that the Service needed. The overriding animus expressed for the Commander and driving this nomination for deletion appears to be a spillover from the disdain that is rampant in the USA today for our military and its members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichbinalj (talk • contribs) 02:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, self-published by London Steverson, still not a reliable source per-WP:RS. BTW, welcome back to wikipedia after 9 years. I see from your edit history you are very interested in London Steverson and uploaded a personal photo of him. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Ben Strickland is the subject of a book, THE CASE OF CDR BENJAMIN STRICKLAND, Authored by L. Steverson USALJ, Retired (ISBN: 9781514682739) that goes into much more detail about the Whistleblower Retaliation taken against him. I served 26 of my 30 active duty years in the Coast Guard, retiring in 2001 as a Chief Warrant Officer 4. I have became friends with Ben and know him to be an honorable, highly decorated officer who I would have proudly served for had he been my Executive Officer or Commanding Officer. Ben took a report of sexual assault and watched as it was being prepared to be swept of the deck of the ship into the dumpster. Commander Strickland's actions, to follow the investigation through to the end. His actions should served as an exemplary example of leadership - like the movie TWELVE O'CLOCK HIGH, which is often shown as an example of leadership. Ben's devotion to follow the Core Values of the Coast Guard - which he has been accused of ignoring them - saw that eventually the accused assaulter was brought to justice for his actions.

The retaliation heaped on Commander Strickland - assigning him to a position in CGHQ that was a junior officer's position; canceling his orders as a Liaison Officer to the Navy in a position that he was only one of two officers qualified to fill, and his early retirement, was unjust and unwarranted. He should have received praise and recognition for his actions.

His page should remain so others can see just how contrite the "Good Old Boys" of Coast Guard Leadership can ruin someone's career.

CWO4 Tim Hecht, USCG Retired — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.57.46 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted. The book mentioned was self-published July 2015 using "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" according to the amazon page.--Dual Freq (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the book in question was self published by its author which is a common practice for books of this type and distributed and sold through Amazon. It is NOT self published by the person who is the subject of the book. The book is in circulation and is a reliable and accurate source of information regarding the acts of retaliation. It is a notable source of information about the subject person and does portray senior Coast Guard management up to and including the current Commandant as a team that encourages an atmosphere of intimidation and retaliation. As a whistleblower his story will be subjected to efforts to cover up the facts. Wikipedia should not fall victim to participating in the cover up of a fact based account of the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allwbs (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted. Welcome to wikipedia. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I do not see anywhere in the article where the biographical information in the article is inaccurate or inconsistant with the references (some of which I provided at the request of the nominator). A single 'Navy Times' article thus far mentioning the whistleblowing angle/allegations/complaint is not all that surprising for a military WB case given the article also indicates there is a pending investigation and hearing with the Board for Correction of Military Records. The way the Ferris Doctrine has been consistently interpreted the past 50+ years, members of the armed forces are ineligible to petition the courts, even if they allege they were wronged by their superiors. Therefore any external media coverage of an ongoing administrative process isn't likely at this time. If the decision is not made to Keep, then admin should consider Merge with other cases/situations involving complaints of retaliation in the armed forces as this sort of information is notable based on the significant coverage and discussion of MST and MST retaliation the past many months (including Sen. Gillibrand's proposal for reforms which would address incidents of alleged retaliation against victims and witnesses such as this). I do not see the Amazon book mentioned in the article, but the discussion here and what appears to be on this talk page a clear attempt to belittle it leads me to believe there is something worth reading there. HawleyPatriot (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the entire Wiki Article regarding Commander Ben Strickland. It is a powerful message of how "old school" good old boys club, behind the scenes, can conspire to ruin a previously acknowledged stellar Naval Officer's career; it needs to remain as a leadership message. A question for dualfreq - your argument for the "does not meet the..WP:GNG because the book by Steverson was self-published; but in checking the "qualifications for sources for the GNG I find this: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Would you please provide your cite against "self-published? I vote keep the article about CDR Strickland - from the minute CDR Strickland stepped up and did his job as the Executive Officer of a Coast Guard High Endurance Cutter (similar to a USN Warship, however the Coast Guard, the 5th Armed Forces of the USA isn't, but should be under the category of WP:SOLDIER. One would question how an argument to exclude CDR Strickland from recognition under WP: SOLDIER since there isn't any criteria listed for the Coast Guard, America's Oldest Seagoing Military Service. While not a component of the DoD it is a vital member to the US Armed Forces. A former Navy Admiral, serving as the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, referred to the Coast Guard as the "Hardened Nucleus that other Services form around in time of Wars or National Emergencies."

CWO4 Tim Hecht, USCG Retired — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.167.238 (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: A previous post does not appear in this discussion and it may be due to my inexperience in participating in this type of discussion. Nevertheless, I am aware that the decision to delete or not to delete is not a matter of majority voting, but should be within the Wikipedia guidelines. As a print and web publisher, given the thousands of federal whistleblowers who step forward each year and the few entries on the page that lists whistleblowers, I am concerned that a discussion such as this one are responsible for keeping whistleblowers from posting. My immediate concern is the issue of whether or not a book published by a third party constitutes a "self published" source as Dual Freq as represented. While I have read the book and have seen documents confirming relevant content there is no indication from this discussion that Dual Freq has read the book. Furthermore, I would not consider a search of the web for confirming information to be a relevant method for a final determination as to whether or not the book and/or its author are a reliable source. In accordance with what I have read (so far) in Wikipedia's guidance, the author by virtue of his position as a retired Administrative Law Judge would be considered as a reliable source. Documentation of the nature that would confirm the facts of the book would not ordinarily be published online, but would be discoverable through a number of methods. From what I have personally seen, I am sufficiently convinced that the book is an accurate representation of fact. Therefore, deletion of the page based on Dual Freq's representation that it is self published and/or based on an "unreliable source" should be dismissed and Dual Freq's motives for requesting deletion based on any other representation should be questioned. – Allwbs (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Allwbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allwbs (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Strickland_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=685583961"