Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Snyder (soldier)

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. Secondary sources demonstrating notability have been produced. MastCell ^Talk 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Snyder (soldier)

Note to closing administrator: article substantially revised early 13 May 2007 Pete.Hurd 04:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom - unless someone believes that the event (desertion) for which this biography claims notability is exceedingly rare, this particular biography hardly seems notable. The fact that he got some press coverage isn't particularly notable, either. In short, what's the big deal? Rklawton 03:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his case is getting a lot of media play up here. Recentism, sure, but I've seen similar media coverage called "notability" in other contexts. Pete.Hurd 06:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "the big deal" is explained in this salon.com article (see also repost on Der Spiegel) that he was arrested in Canada on the orders of the US military, and against the apparent wishes of the Canadian law enforcement agency responsible for such cases (another -not WP:RS?- source here). This is an issue within Canada (Globe and Mail article, CBC and Calgary Sun, Toronto Star coverage of arrest). Members of Parliament have raised the issue (see here and here), the CBC has covered their call for an official probe into the matter here. Maybe he's just another deserter in the US, but his case has sparked national attention about sovereignty issues in Canada. Other coverage of him, but prior to his arrest, in the Canadian media CTV, CBC, Canadian Press, etc, as well as an interview broadcast on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 see transcript here, and Democracy now transcript Pete.Hurd 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The event or case can have an article. The person, not so much. --Kimon^talk 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why not suggest moving rather than deleting? Deleting this article would simply confirm that events that do not pertain directly to the USA are not notable in Wikipedia. Pete.Hurd 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article in question is about the person and not the event. Why don't you start an article on the event? --Kimon^talk 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. On another point, why is he identified as a (soldier) when his claimed notability is for being a (deserter)? Nick mallory 07:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor news figure, not notable. Realkyhick 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Iraq War Resisters. Hey, George W. Bush went AWOL, and he has his own article. Qworty 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not at all notable, just another deserter. If he becomes President, he can have his own article. --Kimon^talk 18:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I suppose Prime Minister wouldn't cut it, eh? It would have to be President... Pete.Hurd 04:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it would. Is he? I didn't read it in the article and I couldn't find any reference to a "Kyle Snyder, Prime Minister of X". So, I guess he' still non-notable. Thank you, come again. --Kimon^talk 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm, WP:BIO says "subject of published secondary sources that are reliable" which was true even before the arrest. After the arrest he's national news in Canada. I don't see where you get this requirement that subjects of WP biographies have to be head of state, but if you can point me to that policy I'd be much obliged. Pete.Hurd 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not get a requirement that he must be head of state. My response of "if he becomes President" was in response to Qworty. May I suggest re-reading this thread? Back to the article though, he does not appear to be nothing more that a person that is involved in a case which has received national attention in Canada. I stand by my delete recommendation and a suggestion to create an article on the case itself. (PS. if you wish to continue the discussion which is unrelated to whether the article should stay or not, I suggest we continue in our respective talk pages) --Kimon^talk 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable sources cut it for me. Ab e g92contribs 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Was the subject of multiple independent reliable sources even before the arrest. Pete.Hurd 01:26, 15 May 2007 (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.