Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Babineau

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. Jaranda wat's sup 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David J. Babineau

With all due respect for the dead, being killed in Iraq in the course of duty is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Certainly being killed in War World II (a more notable war) is not notable enough for inclusion, I don't see why Iraq should be different. Jon513 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am in agreement that the "average" death of a soldier is not notable enough - the circumstances surrounding his death are noticable. There is speculation this ambush was act of revenge of a war crime by US soldiers. We need to remember this incident and remember those involved. SPFLD413 11:44, 10 July 2006 (EST)
  • KEEP for now lets wait for more evidence to appear in court from the investigation to see if in time he will be notable because he was only killed out of revenge or it was just a random killing because he was a U.S. soldier then he should be merged with his two other soldiers that were kidnapped and tortured and killed.--Bnguyen 20:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if it does happen and does prove to be notable, then an article can be created on the whole incident. "Might become notable sometime in the future" is not a criteria to keep an article.--Konstable 06:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete speculation about possible motives isn't ground for keeping. Dlyons493 Talk 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Tens of millions of soldiers have been killed in the last century. This person was one of them. --Xyzzyplugh 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge this page whould be kept merged with the other two comrades. he gave his life the same way they did. he was acutually killed to get to them.
  • Delete As tragic as this is, as tragic as this war is, or any war, the soldier is not notable enough. Imagine listing all soldiers who died in WWII. 13 million from the Soviet Union alone. I understand from the comments above that there is something which could turn out to be notable around the killings, only in that case would I support a merge - however I am in doubt whether it would still be notable, and I doubt that the current court investigation is notable. Things like these tend to happen in wars all the time and there have been A LOT of wars (I haven't heard of this particular case before actually).--Konstable 03:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a place to honor the dead, but it should be a place to honor the honorable. Soldiers die to fight for us, so please keep this article.--Summonmaster13 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a memorial. Like I said, there have been much worse wars than Iraq. So should we honour every honourable WWII soldier? Guys, there are policies for these things - see WP:BIO and point out something in there which says it should be kept - I can't see how this person meets any of those points.--Konstable 06:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a place to honor the honorable. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia --Xyzzyplugh 12:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Fan-1967 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

NOT MEMORIAL--CORRECT, but this KILLING was a REVENGE KILLING so that is why it is NOTABLE

David would not had been killed, if his former member of his platoon Steven Dale Green did not murder the Iraqi family and murder their daughter.

--Bnguyen 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is extremely common for terrorists to claim that their attacks are revenge for a recent event. These claims are almost always false. Many times attacks that took weeks to plan are claimed to be in reaction to event that happened only a few days earilier. Jon513 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well JON513 Please NOTE:=

They were all assigned to the same platoon as Steven Dale Green. The facts from the article explains the truth and not your personal thoughts "These claims are almost always false". Please do some research.

--15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

do you mean the part of the article that says "U.S. investigators had said there was no evidence linking the deaths of the three Soldiers last month to the alleged rape-slaying."? Jon513 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Memorials aren't the wiki's purpose. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom; or Redirect to a suitable list, if one exists (if it does not then maybe interested parties could start a unified list article with brief info, if notable)? --Mais oui! 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
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.