Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Bateman (historian)

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. Note that the wishes of the subject cna be taken into account in the case of marginal notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bateman (historian)

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

Procedural nomination: the subject of the article wants it deleted, but I felt that, whilst notability was asserted, wider community debate of the deletion request would be appropriate. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i dont understand. if the article is inaccurate, based on the subjects own knowledge of himself, cant he remove the inaccuracies? surely thats not COI, as long as what is taken away isnt refed, and anything added is. i would think that anyone who easily passes notability, by having a book published, is a figure in the public eye, and thus cant have an entire article deleted. wouldnt that cause problems if say, henry kissinger asked for his article to be removed due to information in the article he disagreed with or found embarrassing? I do know that people can request removal of libelous or personal material, though. <s--can we leave a stub?--/> Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thanks for the clarification below. i checked the books authored, and i agree that Mr. Bateman's notability for the purposes of this encyclopedia justifies his request to delete the article. And I hope, sir, that you didnt take offense at my comparison example. Your friends (and yourself) might find it amusing that there is a "peace grove" in a park next to berkeley, ca, which has a tree for each Nobel Peace Prize winner, including Mr. Kissinger. Of course, if you choose to (or are chosen) to play a more prominent role in public life, an article may reappear. And, last but not least, thank you for your service.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some issues come up again and again and again. (To my knowledge) there is no requirement in WP policy that a topic that passes WP notability criteria MUST have an article on it. If editors on an AfD page decide that it is appropriate to concur with a subject's wish to not have an article, then those views can form a legitimate consensus. Of course, there are plenty of rogues in the world who would prefer that their activities were not scrutinised by Wikipedia, but the present case does not appear to be one of these. As well, there are plenty of cases that are so notable that the lack of an article would be detrimental to Wikipedia, despite the wishes of the subject. Again this is not one of them, the article appears to be short on notability anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I'm no Henry Kissinger, either as a writer/historian or (as some of my friends would have it) a war criminal. And the fact that I've done a couple of books is really small beans. Most hometown newspapers print more copies daily than the publishers of the books I wrote printed my books. And while I could edit the page, and fix some/all the inaccuracies, there's just something creepy about that. I'd just prefer that the whole thing be deleted. RobertBateman (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notability is well established. I don't think this content should be lost. Perhaps article can be broken up into articles about the individual books and other issues? I suggest Bateman points out the innaccuracies (along with any sources that are reliable) on the talk page so the article can be fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteA journalist, not an historian. I am not influenced by what he says about his own notability, nor do I agree in the least that a person who is notable has a right to ask for his article to be removed. it's typically difficult to judge notability by searching when looking at columnists and similar writers, because of the articles by the person. But I really don't see any notability here. Notability may be asserted, which prevented the speedy deletion, but it isn't present. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see any notability as an author, journalist or historian? Really? What am I missing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article is entirely based on Bateman's own writings and various blog posts about them; there seems to be very little in it sourced to reliable third-party publications about Bateman. The Skeptical Inquirer piece may be an exception (I can't tell because the link is broken), but we need more than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If an author is notable for their work, I don't see how this one isn't notable. From the Washington Post "Army records discovered last month by Maj. Robert Bateman, a West Point historian, strongly suggest that Daily was not a member of the famed 7th Cavalry--Gen. George Custer's old regiment--in July 1950. According to these records, at that time Daily was serving with the 27th Ordnance Maintenance Group, which was in Korea but nowhere near No Gun Ri; Daily did not join the 7th Cav until March 1951 and served for less than two months." From the San Francisco Chronicle "Now, one of the three AP writers, Charles Hanley, is apparently trying to suppress publication of a new book -- "No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident" -- that takes another view of what happened at No Gun Ri. The book, written by U.S. Army Maj. Robert Bateman, is highly critical of the AP story, calling into question the reporters' sources and research. But Bateman's book isn't the first time the AP story has been criticized.

"By May 2000, barely a month after the three AP writers were awarded their Pulitzer, journalism's highest award, challenges to the AP investigation had begun to appear, most notably in U.S. News & World Report and on the now- defunct Web site stripes.com. It was the start of a skirmish between the AP and critics of the No Gun Ri story that's still going on. ...For his part, Hanley said in an e-mail message to The Chronicle, "It is more than appropriate for me to defend my professional reputation and the reputations of my colleagues against a man who . . . has attacked our integrity based on nothing more than his own wild imaginings and ignorance."

"Hanley learned of Bateman's work on No Gun Ri after Bateman circulated early drafts of his material to historians, journalists and veterans of the 7th Cavalry. Hanley says the veterans "called my attention to" Bateman's book. "

"Hanley says Bateman's version of what happened at No Gun Ri is "simply a vicious attack on us (the AP writers) personally, with fantasies about our psyches and motivations, about our mysterious evil journalistic methodologies, and about the dark secrets he imagines we're keeping.

""It belongs on the science fiction shelf," Hanley wrote in the e-mail. "

"He said Bateman's publisher is "free to publish whatever it wants." But he decided to write the publisher anyway because "obviously, if you care about your own good reputation and the truth, you would lay out the facts so that anyone considering perpetuating this stuff would know he's handling material rife with falsehoods."

"Publishers say pre-emptive strikes against forthcoming controversial books happen more often than one might think. "It is not unusual when somebody discovers they're the subject of a book, and they don't like it, to attempt to influence what will be published," said Peter Osnos, a longtime reporter for the Washington Post who now runs PublicAffairs, a New York publishing house." [1].

If this author isn't notable, what does it take? Is there something going on behind the scenes that I don't know about? And that's just from two major sources. There's lots more. Another book. He's written lots of articles. Etc. etc.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speaking for (and I guess 'of') myself, I just don't think that a couple of newspaper articles, and the fact that I did some books and have written a few hundred articles/reviews makes me notable. Not in this day and age. If that were so, then every academic historian out there, for the past 100 years, not to mention every single journalist of the past 200 years, would be considered notable. Yes, I've been in some academic/journalistic foodfights. But aside from people who personally know/follow the antagonists, it's about as notable as a brawl outside of Gilly's Bar and Grill on your average Texas Saturday night. RobertBateman (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2009 (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.