Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. The discussion is mainly about whether the presumed notability conferred by general officer rank (per WP:SOLDIER) outweighs the argument that this is (more or less uncontestedly) otherwise a WP:BLP1E article. Opinions about this are roughly divided. WP:SOLDIER is an essay, and as such does not represent community consensus. I must therefore weigh arguments based (essentially only) on that essay much less than those based on WP:BLP, a policy. This means we have consensus to delete the article.  Sandstein  08:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

[edit]
Jeffrey Allen Sinclair (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)

There are no sources independent of the one event that this article coveres, per WP:BLP1E. It is asserted that the subject's rank confers notability per WP:SOLDIER but of course notability is not inherited and subject-specific inclusion guidelines are only an indication of who is likely to be covered by sufficient sources to allow a neutral article. As far as I can see nothing beyond directory-style sources exists outside of the one event. This would be a good candidate for a merge to an article on sexual abuse in the military, but as a biography it lacks any depth. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GregJackP Boomer! 03:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established alone in the fact that person is a Flag Officer and has had a significatn command which he does have. I completely agree to reducing the coverage on the sexual assualt but not all bios have to have a lot of info. I started it as a stub and if that is all it ends up I'm ok with that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how many other articles on current one-star generals do we have, and why was there no article on this one before the event, and why does the article only include sources about the event? Guy (Help!) 19:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:JzG, that is a fallacy. Just because there isn't a lot of articles about one star generals doesn't mean there isn't a need for them, articles not created doesn't say one or another as to their notability. I have to be honest that I'm a little discouraged at the moment with this and other things. It's probably best for me to revisit at another time. I will state that if the AFD deletion passes, I plan on rewriting completely and trying again. the subject is notable, I too share the concerns about wanting to not smear the man hence why I asked for the help to begin with. I encourage you to look at the other version not restored for details. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you say. And I say that the idea that articles on people are needed just because they meet some arbitrary criterion, is equally fallacious. Most have not been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. The purpose of the guideline is partly to indicate who may be notable, by reference to sources, and partly to exclude those of even less chance of notability. We have a policy: WP:BLP. It mandates a conservative approach. This article is a self-evident WP:COATRACK. It does you no credit. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I in NO way intentionally wrote a COATRACK article and I resent that. I carefully checked the notability factors prior to writing and I attempted to keep the details of that part of the article very small. I have every step of the way tried to respect this man [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. I'm sorry but I would like an apology that actually really bothers me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:JzG I was the one that recently added the novel to Sinclair's page. I'm a newbie and obviously made many mistakes. In adding more information, I began to feel like if I didn't include x than it looked biased towards y thus the reason I included as much as I did. My intention was never to attack, smear, etc. and I hope this is fully understood. This weekend, I'm going to see what I can find on Sinclair independent of the case, and forward to User:Hell in a Bucket for his thoughts and consideration. Want to tread lightly while this is under review and in light of my mistakes. Have a good weekend! LovinTheSunshine (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was intentional, I actually think you are adding better written content then me, I will be happy to give my opinion too where I can. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second the notability due to the fact that he's a Flag Officer. Regarding additional notability and his conviction or lack there of - that is just a small piece of the puzzle. Notability stems from the manner in which the entire case was conducted, investigated, influenced, open to the public ( ie discussing in open court the mental health or lack thereof of the former prosecutor), and highlighted during the government's proposed policy changes on sexual assault in the military. While I understand the removal of the sexual assault details, I'd ask that you reconsider his notability as it relates to his sentence.LovinTheSunshine (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has brought reliable sources about him that are independent of the case. If what you are saying is that the case is notable, maybe there should be an article about the case. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and think that your suggestion is a good one.LovinTheSunshine (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
would you be open to creating that article? you seem to know lots about this. perhaps if that happens, this AFD could pivot to a merge and redirect....Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment a separate article on the case may be warranted but not a stub bio. I plan on rewriting in full the biography if the afd goes through I just have no energy to do so now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JytdogI'm open to helping in anyway that I can, and the direction would be beneficial as I get to know Wikipedia better. It's rather overwhelming with all of the possibilities. I'll keep in touch with Hell in a Bucketas things continue to unfold. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions. It's nice when people come together to get things done.LovinTheSunshine (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:BLP1E applies here. What sources exist on Sinclair prior to the scandal? I looked and found insufficient ones. In the current article, there are only two putatively not-scandal sources. One of them is a bio at awordpress site used by Time (here) - but the only place that bio is linked-to within Time, is an article about the scandal (see this search - the bio is linked from the "Military Misbehavin" article). The other one is a currently dead link on another Wordpress blog. here - the mainpage of that blog is here. Its a blog so fails RS/SPS in any case. This article should not exist in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable except for the scandal; had there been a conviction for a major crime, there would arguably have been notability. I originally deleted this as an attack page, but decided to ask for a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sinclair was convicted of major crimes. Disobeying an Order could have cost him 5 years in prison. Adultery is punishable by up to a year in prison. So is Conduct Unbecoming an Officer. I could go on and list all of the punishment possible under the UCMJ, but these were in fact major crimes. He pleaded guilty to avoid conviction for more serious offenses, true, but that doesn't change the nature of the offenses he was convicted of committing. GregJackP Boomer! 18:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most people convicted of a crime of this magnitude, are not covered in Wikipedia. The article is in any case about the crime, not the person. That is the whole problem, in fact. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His comment was that it was not a major crime. It was, and my response was to that specific comment, not the notability of the individual which was covered in other comments. Unless you are saying that it 1) was not a major crime; or 2) that the WP:OSE argument you just made negates the inherent notability as a flag officer. GregJackP Boomer! 19:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Flag officers are notable, see WP:SOLDIER, he was the Deputy Commanding General for the 82nd Airborne Division in combat in Afganistan, he had served in high level staff positions, and there are clear sources available for these. Any one of those is enough to qualify for the military notability requirement, plus Sinclair also meets WP:GNG. WP:INHERIT doesn't apply to a notability based on someone attaining flag rank, the individual earned that rank and did not "inherit" anything from it. GregJackP Boomer! 17:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that sources now show that in addition to being a flag officer, he commanded an infantry battalion in combat (1-18IN), and a heavy infantry brigade in combat (172d Hvy Inf Bde). And you have sources showing both of those, along with a source showing his promotion to flag rank. GregJackP Boomer! 03:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Deputy Commanding General for the 82nd Airborne Division in combat in Afganistan where does it say that? I can see in the article Sinclair was deputy commander of support for 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, where he was promoted to flag rank.[4] He continued to serve in this position with the division in Afghanistan Sounds like deputy commander of 82nd Sustainment Brigade (United States). Hamish59 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the 82nd Sustainment Brigade is a separate formation, commanded by a colonel. It is one of the six brigades subordinate to the division. Sinclair would supervise the commander of that brigade, but the brigade would not have been commanded by him. GregJackP Boomer! 01:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion He is not a "general officer" as used on Wikipedia, nor does he hold the "Medal of Honor" - but I suggest that he achieved sufficient rank as deputy commander of a major division, which basically means I think the "strict interpretation" of notability (essay) for military people may be wrong here. Collect (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect:, are you stating that a brigadier general is not a "general officer?" How so? GregJackP Boomer! 18:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that Wikipedians in the past apparently decided "one star" is more a "brigadier" than like a "general" which they defined to be four stars. So we are stuck with that odd rule if we follow that project's notability guidelines. I would be a "keep" were this not an ambiguous situation. Collect (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it's only a guideline as to people who are likely to have sufficient sources for inclusion, so it's not actually a problem. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect:, do you have a link to that discussion? The ones I found on the MilHist archives were not so clear as that. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: Nowhere on Wikipedia has it ever been decided that brigadier generals are not general officers per WP:SOLDIER. Nowhere has it ever been decided that only "four-star" generals count. This is utter rubbish and I have no idea where you got it from. In fact, even British and Commonwealth brigadiers, who are not general officers but hold equivalent rank, have been held to be notable under WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E and GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor crime, low notable individual, as per User:Jytdog and User:JzG , not a biography and so verges on an attack page, as per User:DGG. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Ok, everyone needs to pay real, real close attention here because this is where the afd gets very, very scary: WP:SOLDIER covers Flag Officers as a collective whole, not a nation by nation basis. Because of this, any officer holding the rank of a One-Star General or Admiral is considered notable because the world's military forces do not necessarily make use of the all ranks that the US or the UK are familiar with. A good example of this can be found in US History: until about World War II the highest rank any flag officer could hold was Major General (a two star), which was done in difference to General George Washington's rank of Lieutenant General (a three star officer). If Sinclar's rank was held in 1930 He would be among the second highest ranking general officers in the US at the time. Moreover, from an international perspective, Brigadier General has well established notability under WP:SOLDIER. The Belgium Military caps its medical corps at Major General, making Brigadier General the second highest rank that can be obtained in that service. In the Swiss Armed Forces, Lithuanian Armed Forces, and the Singapore Armed Forces there isn't a four star rank (although in some cases it may be added in times of war), making the one star rank more important to the armed forces. In the hierarchical Vatican City Military and the Military of Monaco, the highest rank that can be obtained is Colonel, demonstrating the lack of agreement on how Flag ranks are employed internationally. Put simply, the international nature of this encyclopedia is such that disqualifying an officer from being covered under the protection of WP:SOLDIER affords to Flag Officers then we are going to have a real hard time trying to figure out who is notable under the criteria and who is not. On BLP1, I will keep my peace, as the article does appear to have issues with the ONEEVENT criteria. That having been said, it isn't every day that a Flag Officer is demoted two ranks for adulatory. That does seem to imply notability, but that isn't relevant to my above point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - not held a combat command as a general/flag officer. He was Asst Division Commander - Support for the 82nd Abn Div, that's one of three Asst Div Commanders. If he held a brigade command as a colonel it's possible he would be notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He commanded the 172d Heavy Infantry Brigade in Iraq as a colonel. GregJackP Boomer! 01:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Buckshot06 what about Chief of the Plans and Training Division in the Joint Special Operations Command? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Command, not a staff post like the Plans and Training div chief. Part of the problem with this article is we don't have the officer's full service history. What battalion-level post did he command? Was he artillery, infantry? etc. This is where I disagree with Tom and the draft Milhist guideline - has to be independently notable as a Brig Gen; may be different as a Major General. But finally, GNG trumps everything... Buckshot06 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I thought this was like schools, if you can prove the General existed they are presumed notable even absent significant coverage. I can't even begin to explain how many times I've tried to fight that one. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hell in a Bucket: You are absolutely correct. The fact an individual holds or held general, flag or air officer rank or equivalent has always been held to make them notable. Anyone arguing otherwise clearly hasn't participated in many relevant AfD discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer all of this revolves about a single issue - is a Brigadier General by normal standards considered a "General" with regard to the United States Army? If so, then the notability matter is met. If not, then not. Not a matter of debate, really, at that point. It appears each person here does feel that the "sex scandal" issue, considering the nature of its outcome in a legal sense (that is - not a lot), was given undue weight in the BLP in the past. Issues of WEIGHT, however, are not matters for decisions on deletion here if the person appears to meet the notability threshold. Collect (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The US Army considers that an O-7 Brigadier General is a "General Officer" - they classify officers as "company grade" (lieutenants and captains), "field grade" (majors and colonels), and "general officers" (brigadier general and above). Brigadier generals have all of the accouterments and privileges of general officers. GregJackP Boomer! 01:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the above declaration. Clarity will help on that point and solve the question. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support that declaration. Guidlelines don't outweigh policy, and a) no one has brought sources about this guy outside the scandal or even pre-scandal, and b) each of NOTABILITY and BLP1E is policy. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so we remove the criminal case. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
which leaves nothing. and is weird. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable but there will still be some left, not every article needs to have all info about a person. He was a general which is a rather important position. I quite understand what you are saying with the depth of coverage and IF we get confirmation that a Brigadier General rank is not enough for notability requirements for Flag Officers I will support the conclusion but that is the key to the arguments at least to me. On an aside how do you feel about auto school notability because I still think it shouldn't be that way? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Collect, User:Jytdog according to Flag Officer, in the USA "In the U.S. Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the term "flag officer" generally is applied to all general officers authorized to fly their own command flags—i.e., brigadier general, or rank O-7, and above" This is a superior source to the one in that article [[4]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67:. He meets WP:GNG. In the US Army, the "arms corps" are Infantry, Armor/Cavalry, Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, Aviation, Special Forces, and Combat Engineers. There are articles from when he commanded an infantry battalion in combat in Iraq, there are articles from when he commanded a heavy infantry brigade in combat in Iraq, there are articles where he was promoted to brigadier general and served as the deputy commanding general with the 82d Airborne Division in Afghanistan. All of those sources are independent of the court-martial and sex scandal. WP:SOLDIER is just on top of that. GregJackP Boomer! 05:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it [5]: "Brig Gen Jeffrey Sinclair is accused of forcing a female captain to perform a sex act on him and threatening to kill her family if she reported it.". Still, this does not appear to me as something very notable - based on the press coverage currently in this page. This is my subjective judgement of course. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes:, there are literally hundreds of WP:RS for the scandal and the fact that he is one of only a few generals to be court-martialed in the U.S. in the last 60 years. They are not in the article because of an overabundance of caution and an overzealous view of WP:BLP (which provides that negative information can be if it is widely and reliably sourced). There is absolutely no question that Sinclair meets GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 00:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it works for me. Perhaps this article should be kept as a page about one of the most notable sexual offenders in US Army [6]. However, he must be described as such in the article. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- to, me this fails any notability test by mile, but I acknowledge that he passes for the current guidelines for WP:SOLDIER. If he was demoted at the end of his career, the reasons for the demotion are very relevant. But the article should not be a smear piece. Wxidea (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously, as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER. I have never seen a general officer from any country deleted at AfD and I fail to see why we should make an exception for this man because he's been involved in a scandal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essays (WP:SOLDIER) don't override policy (WP:GNG). At any rate the idea that a general officer is assumed to be notable under WP:SOLDIER and therefore actually is notable has always been a misinterpretation of that essay (regardless of how many times it is misapplied at AFD). I can't see significant coverage as evident by the numerous details of this bloke's life and career which are missing from the article. Anotherclown (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And one policy doesn't override another - WP:IAR, our most important policy in my opinion, which calls for common sense over dogma. It's that policy that leads to the common consensus on the interpretation of WP:SOLDIER at AfD. It is common sense that people holding such a high rank are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a flag officer - and actually one who has gotten a fair amount of coverage, but keep in any case. To those who claim that WP:SOLDIER doesn't override WP:GNG - yes, actually in a sense it does. So do WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:POLITICIAN and WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ACADEMIC and many other guidelines where consensus has developed that certain subjects are "presumed notable" - that is, it is assumed that significant reliable source coverage could be found on those subjects, even if it isn't in the article at the moment. These conventions are widely respected at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot bring myself to argue this article should be deleted, but I disagree with much of what I have read here. First, I think it is a settled point that a one star officer of the U.S. Army meets WP:SOLDIER - all such officers are referred to as general officers in the army, and are entitled to fly a flag of their command, and as such qualify as either general officers or flag officers. However, while WP:SOLDIER is a useful guideline for military articles, it loses its force when the subject's primary notability is for reasons other than his/her rank. I think Guy's off-hand remark was telling - we have very few articles about one star generals, for the same reason we don't have many articles about ambassadors, or trial court judges. They are highly respected, highly accomplished, but generally don't attract enough attention from sources for us to say much about them. I actually think that the GNG is a far better measure for such individuals. However, the subject's rank is important in this regard - WP:BLP1E suggests that it should apply to low profile individuals. A general officer is not low profile in the army, and it is in this context the story emerged. This event was heavily reported, considerably more so than our current sources indicate. There was lengthy coverage herein The New York Times; the reference formerly was in the article but was eliminated when other material was revdel'ed out. The subject was the apparently only the 3rd general ever to prosecuted by the army, and the first for sexual assault. The judge found political considerations may have affected the case. And of course several news outlets noted a link to larger problems of sexual assault in the military. I'll opine keep, but would not object to an article about the prosecution instead; I think that there's enough to warrant it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeffrey_Allen_Sinclair&oldid=1068867151"