Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Setyawan

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 keep. Tone 17:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Setyawan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:1E as mentioned in here. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Most of pre-2021 sources for this person are in Indonesia and the ARS would waste its time for rescuing this article. I have rescued this article to IDWIKI instead, where people would at least understand what the Indonesian sources mean. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jeromi Mikhael: As you also created the page, are you saying you now believe the page should be deleted, or did you open this AfD on behalf of the commenters at WP:ITNC?—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I opened this on behalf of the commenters. Is it ok if I ping them to come here? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeromi Mikhael: It's your prerogative. For another perspective, Zeke Upshaw's AfD also originated from ITN, but was speedily kept. Sometimes, ITN participants wrongfully assume that a new bio can't be notable just because it didn't exist before their death. If you personally believe this is notable, you do still have the option of withdrawing this nomination, as nobody has formally supported this AfD yet. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: If this article passes AfD I'll nominate this for ITN again. I'll wait for the blurb to disappear first, though. I have encountered similar circumstances before where the article subject is a result of blurbed event (Mulyadi Tamsir). Strangely the article I mentioned has no opposition tho. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer eligible for RD, as the subject has been deceased for over one week. This is the primary reason I don't like taking RD noms to AfD. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who oppose the ill-fated nomination based on WP:1E. @GreatCaesarsGhost, Modest Genius, and Masem: --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITN is an exercise in fuility. By the time this is resolved, it will be deemed "old" and "stale." Won't happen. Your best path to the main page is WP:DYK, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I've commented below. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage of him personally, and he played a notable role in the event. Quoting WP:1E exclusively - the article would only be valid to merge (which would be preferable to deletion) "if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage", but instead there are multiple references covering him published well before the event so a merge is not possible. The article correctly exists, as "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" and "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified", which are both met due to extensive coverage of him personally due to being the highest ranking naval officer of a headline news piece for multiple days. The intention of the rule is to stop WP:PSEUDO-biographies focused solely on an individual's role in an event; his biography is not focused on the event, with only five-sentences for it, and the remainder of the article being a high quality biography considering what information is available. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this article is truly 1E, it doesn't read that way to me at least; the article is perfectly balanced and discusses his military career in depth. It reminds me a bit of the article Luca Attanasio, a bio that was created after his death and which me and some other editors got the Main Page as an RD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is difficult for me to assess, as all the pre-death sources are in Indonesian, which I don't speak. The article has been substantially expanded since the ITN nomination and now contains much more information on his prior career, so does seem less of a WP:BIO1E issue than it was when I first saw it. However, I worry that reporting of those naval command appointments, sporting results etc. might be WP:ROUTINE, which would not establish notability independently of the sub sinking. That is, if you exclude the reporting of his death, and the routine sources, is there still substantial coverage of him in the references? I'll defer to those that speak Indonesian and assume good faith in their assessment of those sources. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its fair enough to keep this individual given the sourcing - the situation at ITN was the fact that in a mass disaster like the sub sinking, focusing on one person that wasn't readily notable beforehand, calling out one person out of 56 would be problematic. But outside of ITN, there's no reason this article can't exist. --Masem (t) 12:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What happens in WP:ITN is not relevant as news from one person is too much, but this article should stand. Yes, he gain more notability after the sinking of the sub, but based on what I read his notability is well established well before the sinking of the sub.SunDawn (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. for reasons cited above. Meets WP:GNG, quite apart from the last event. WP:HEY 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe the question is, "Would this meet GNG prior to the sub loss?" In my interpretation (not being able to read the sources), the prior refs appear to be routine coverage of an ordinary military career from non-diverse sources that are likely just printing government press releases. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons noted above, WP:GNG has clearly been met, there's enough here to justify a stand-alone article. --Jayron 32 17:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the time of his death, the subject held the rank equivalent to that of Captain in Anglophone navies. He appears to be at least as notable as Ralph Kerr, final captain of HMS Hood, and John Leach, final captain of HMS Prince of Wales, each of whom went down with his ship. As English Wikipedia purports to cover the whole world, the fact that he was not enlisted in the navy of an Anglophone country is irrelevant to the question of notability. Bahnfrend (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2021 (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.