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 no consensus. Breaks rather evenly down both sides. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. McCarthy[edit]

Patrick M. McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Reasons

1. Personal Attack: The article is about a living person, yet ascribes actions to the person that are not supported by the linked information. The article appears to be politically drive, not objective and reasoned as required.
2. Not Notable: The subject's actions have not been notable, and include commenting on a few situations and being a "senior navy appraiser." The subjects are already covered in separate categories.
3. Cites: The cites include an opinion piece from the Huffington Post, insinuating the subject of lying. This is libelous. Further, the cites include news from an interview summarizing the statements, but also from a political point of view. Another cite is an unascribed piece of paper showing a list of "senior navy appraisers." This is simply not noteworthy, and the cites suffer on reliability grounds.
4. For a full reason, see Discussion page on this subject. Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep or Speedy Close as Disrupted This article is notable, and I have been monitoring the situation with this page, this user seems to have made it their mission to continually vandalise, blank, and now attempt to delete this page.--UltraMagnus (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly take note that this request for deletion has been in full accordance with Wikipedia's policies, and I will be keeping the policy of civility in my responses in mind. The articles lacks notability, except by what you have yourself stated. I would respectfully request that the "notable" character of this article be detailed so that we may have a true debate on this subject. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, while the article does have problems, McCarthy is notable as the lead attorney at Guantanamo. It should be hashed out on the talk page, not by calling for the entire article to be deleted. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability. Subject has clearly been a position of some legal authority, first as Naval Commander and later as Captain, at Gitmo. However, the coverage I find such as this (not all-inclusive) is really not coverage of him but rather statements by him with respect to Gitmo. I don't think this confers notability. He may well have other claims to notability, but they aren't in this article (and aren't forthcoming in searches I tried). Now, having said all that, I get the feeling that the nomination and response above are part of some larger dispute; I apologize in advance if that is incorrect. If it is correct, please understand that my position to delete this article is based only on the article and my examination of sources and has nothing to do with any dispute that may be brewing just underneath the surface. Let's focus on the content, which is the reason we are here.  Frank  |  talk  21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Frank. I have been trying to stay above the fray on this, and have tried to stay objective. The links provided would better be served under subject tabs, and the individual does not merit his own page on this issue. Thus, issues such as "Beard Shaving" belong under an article in interrogation techniques, detainee suicides under the subject, etc. They are merely commentary, and lack any specific notable effect on the actual issues. Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again - I'm not "taking sides" here. This is strictly about the content.  Frank  |  talk  00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if article stands as is. The article is a hackjob on the man, and a case in point of why we have template:coatrack. I'm not in favor of deleting an article altogether, but as it stands, this article is awful, and is better off not existing at all on Wikipedia, if only for personal dignity. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some clean-up, putting his notability in the introduction, shortening some coatrack issues and such, would appreciate if you could do the same so the article is salvageable Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sherurcij: I saw the changes you made to the article, but Magog's description pretty much sums this entire thing up. The fact he was an attorney at GITMO is irrelevant. What makes it "notable" is what he has done according to the sources, which is not much. Instead, we are sourced to items of dubious merit that reflect opinion pieces and uses selective terms within them. His comments are basically irrelevant to the larger issues. Instead, we are asked to consider wider issues and selective facts and then to ascribe motives to statements he has made. This is template:coatrack. It's simply not salvageable. It is what it is.Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he is the lead attorney at Guantanamo is actually quite notable and relevant. I agree that his opinion on detainee suicides seems irrelevant, but he deserves an article certainly. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not. The "notable" person is the person he advised - The Base Commander. He is no more notable than you or I going to work, or some guy going to Iraq, or some guy cleaning the street. Such individuals only become "notable" when they do something as part of their job or in defiance thereof that is "noteworthy." In this case, the job itself is non-descript, it is whether he actually did something that counts. And the sources do not reveal that he, in fact, did anything out of the ordinary other than do his job. Statements do not cut it.Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.
  • Patrick M. McCarthy submitted an important affidavit. This affidavit, which claimed the captives' habeas counsel were violating national security, was the basis of a motion to attempt to severely limit captive's access to their lawyers. It was important. His role is important, because he was the liason with the habeas attorneys. I think he would be "notable" for this alone. McCarthy was also interviewed for 24 minutes on a nationwide broadcast, his opinions have been frequently quoted, on a variety of topics, in prominent newspapers, for an extended period of time.
  • I am very disappointed by this nomination, because the concerns raised in it should have been more properly raised on the article's talk page. Our nominator is a newbie. This is the first article they edited. This nomination states that the article does not comply with policy, but I suspect the nominator hasn't understood our policies yet.
  • Many of the concerns, if they held merit, would simply not be criteria for deletion.
  • I am completely mystified by the concern that the article contains personal attacks. I believe a concern like this should have been brought up on the article's talk page, in a civil, specific manner.
  • This nomination states that the article should be deleted because it "appears to be politically drive [sic]". Actually, our nominator has already made clear the original reasons he or she thinks the article should be deleted. The nominator left an offensive note on my user page stating that my main emphasis was to endanger American GIs and their families. Nominator seemed to be saying that this article, and similar articles, endanger GIs and make them the target of terrorist retaliation. Personally, I think this fear is unrealistic. If nominator could make a credible case that this article put McCarthy at risk I would agree to suppress it.
  • Our nominator has also stated we are obliged to get permission from every individual we write about, and that this article should be deleted because we didn't get McCarthy's permission first. Our nominator has also stated we are obliged to get permission from every individual who image we display -- even if those images are in the public domain. (I sought other's opinions on this claim, here.)
  • I find our nominator's competing assertions confusing. They think McCarthy is prominent enough to be the target of terrorist retaliation, but they don't think he is prominent enough to merit coverage on the wikipedia? I suggest that anyone believed to be at risk of terrorist retaliation -- like Valerie Plame -- would merit coverage here for that fact alone.
  • Our nominator has objected to the inclusion of a reference to McCarthy being a "senior JAG assessor", and has repeatedly removed that reference -- and has cited that reference as a justification for deleting this article. The reference is not important, but does give an indication as to what McCarthy has been doing since he finished his stint in Guantanamo. This reference is certainly not grounds for deletion. As I stated above, the nominator's justifications for deletion include many concerns which should have been raised on the article's talk page.
  • Our nominator has objected to the use of a reference to an article Andy Worthington, the author of a book on Guantanamo, wrote for the Huffington Post, calling it an unreliable cite. To the best of my knowledge the Huffington Post is a reliable source, because the authors who write there include authoritative experts -- like Worthington. Even if, for the sake of argument, this particular reference was not an RS, that would not be grounds for deletion.
  • Our nominator interpreted Worthington's comments as asserting that McCarthy had lied. Nominator called this "libelous". This is not grounds for deletion. The wikipedia's policy on neutrality point of view does not allow contributors to insert personal opinions. But it does allow us to include the personal opinions of Reputable sources. Including the opinions of reputable sources, while maintaining a neutral point of view, is not a violation of policy. And, even if the nominator was concerned that the coverage of Worthington's comments lapsed from neutrality, that should have been the subject of a talk page discussion. It is not grounds for deletion.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to geoswan:

Please review the guidelines on personal attacks before posting again. Thank you.

It should be noted that the source link provided asks anyone who utilizes sources to differentiate between an opinion piece and an actual scholarly work. The Huffington Post has never been noted for its "non-opinionated" stance on anything, and is hardly the sort of bastion of scholarly work and integrity that this site strives to have linked to its work. Indeed, its political bent to the left is well known, and well documented. It suffers as a source from a lack of "objectivity," something Wikipedia strives for in all of its articles as a policy. The piece cited and written by Worthington is, indeed, an "opinion piece." It contains within it an admission that he does not know what happened to the subjects of the story, but he provides a conspiracy theory based on his admittedly uninformed opinion, lacking in facts. This is not worthy of being cited, expect to the degree that its inclusion is template:coatrack. Its opinion-driven conclusions do not make the subject "notable."

The item included as "Senior JAG Assessor" appears to be a piece of paper with no context. Far from the contributor's assessment of value, it does little to show what the subject has been doing of late, but merely reflects an assigned duty (probably one of many) and is not worthy of inclusion. Again, however, we are asked to assume this somehow makes this person "notable?" How precisely?

The commentator states that the subject provided an Affidavit. Is this notable? Most attorneys sign pleadings on most days. The simple fact that they did their job, and it got sourced in a newspaper story once is hardly "notable." Indeed, Wikipedia makes it clear that a short spurt of coverage in the news does not qualify for making a living person "notable" The same applies to any of the stories linked. There is no "notability" for inclusion on this site.

The commentor states an incredulous line of debate that "if a person could be the target of terrorists, how is he not notable?" Under this reasoning, any soldier, sailor or marine who wears a uniform is "notable" because he could be targeted by terrorists while walking around in Baghdad. Again, how does this make the actual subject of the story "notable?"

In conclusion, this story should be deleted primarily because the subject is not "notable." "Notability" is instead driven by the opinion of the author who sees the events at Guantanamo as notable, and who will then strive to use the story of a living person to drive home that point. The presence of one person at the base is simply not enough to provide a "notable" status. This is a coathanger, or a "hackjob" as has been previously stated. The story should, therefore, be deleted.

Sincerely, Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article does not make sense in my eyes one bit. Delete it. --RoryReloaded (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability backed by multiple non-trivial sources. Clearly a public figure, deserving of coverage. Megapixie (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide any sources that are about the subject of this article, rather than just containing quotes from him? I only see one in the article that appears to be an interview of him, and that's not really about him - it's about Gitmo and he happens to be of interest as the head lawyer at the time. Notability is not inherited.  Frank  |  talk  02:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank: Could we reach a consensus then that the page be deleted, and the links can then be used for separate articles on Guantanamo and/or the War on Terror? In other words, Guantanamo is notable, as is its prisons, but the links reflect comments on: (1) The Suicides of Detainees [There is a separate article on this]; (2) Grooming [There is are multiple articles on this subject]; (3) Interrogation techniques as they have evolved over time [There is a separate article on this]; and (4) an affidavit in a court case [There is are multiple articles on these as well]. I agree that there is a lack of notability because the subject's own actions are not listed, and notability, as you have observed, is not inherited. So why not just allow the links that reflect comments on the larger issues to be used in the articles they apply to? That would allow the cites to be used when the article involves "notable" events, providing context to existing articles on these subjects. Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Our nominator's suggestions immediately above suggest to me that they may not have yet fully explored what makes the wikipedia different from a conventional, linear, paper encyclopedia. Captain McCarthy is a recurring figure. He played a central role as a liason between the prison and the captives' habeas counsel. He played a central role in the efforts to restrict access between the habeas counsel and their clients. He played a central role in reporting the deaths of the four men the DoD described as suicides, being the first person to offer a first hand account of key details. He was a vocal advocate of the DoD's account that the captives were being treated humanely. He could be mentioned in all these articles. But it is a disservice to readers to not have a central place which would allow readers who were reading about the suicides, or the affidavits, to look into McCarthy's other roles. That central place should be the article about him.

Ideally, I would like this article to contain more details about his life before Guantanamo, where he went to school, his civilian legal career, his previous posts, his posts following Guantanamo, year of birth. Our nominator keeps deleting the brief reference I found to what Captain McCarthy has been doing in the last couple of months. Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another concern -- Our nominator is a newcomer, and has been doing something that has bugged me in the occasional ((afd)) other nominators have made. It seems to me that when someone has nominated an article for deletion they are announcing they don't think there is any way it can be fixed. So why not quit editing it, and let people who think it merits efforts to improve it have a free hand? Our nominator has made something like a dozen edits to the article after making the nomination. None of them seem to be of an emergency nature. Please, if are on record as favoring delete, unless it is an emergency, why not keep your hands off, and let those who are looking at the article for the first time see it as those who think it has a future believe it should be seen? Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thank you. I note that you have also made numerous edits 'after' the nomination was made, which were considered a "hack job" by Magog the Ogre for the light in which they cast the subject. In any event, I have yet to see why the subject is "notable." The fact that you cannot find a single fact about him other than a piece of paper that lists "Senior JAG Appraisers," with numerous others, and a few quotes from news stories that talk about some general observations of larger events, devoid of accomplishments, tends to support the lack of notability of the subject. Indeed, pointing to the fact that the individual may become "notable" after further research is often referred to as a "crystal ball argument."

Again, why not use the cites to support the separate subjects to which they apply as proposed to Frank supra? I think this is a modest consensus.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no source that focuses on the subject of this article. Many quote him, but none are about him. This does not satisfy notability guidelines nor WP:BLP. I'm also concerned about the arguments being made to keep this article, many of which are specifically addressed in Arguments to avoid. This includes the argument that the article may have more pertinent information to allow it to stand alone in the future, repeated arguments that the nominator is new and doesn't understand Wikipedia, and the reasoning behind its notability is that the subject of the article is related to the Gitmo proceedings and is important because of that (when notability is not inherited). We must focus on the content of the article as opposed to ignoring the civility policy when discussing this and other articles. BWH76 (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as disrupted The article properly discusses the subject. At least it would, if the nom. would not try to mangle the article. I am reluctant to talk about bad faith nominations, but I call attention to the incredible edits described at [1] and especially the almost unbelievable abuse on a user page at [2]. (the nom was briefly blocked for them by another admin) Personally, I would regard this as reason for closing the AfD. someone else can later restart it, but the actions of the nom have contaminated this beyond all hope. The only reason I do not do this myself is my long-standing interest in defense of similar articles. DGG (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I'm trying to keep this civil and dispassionate. I can only hope others keep that in mind.

What in this article is "notable?" To date, the defense of this article appears to be engaging in attacks on the nominator, yet not one of these tacts actually "debates" the issue of whether the subject is "notable."

Let me summarize what I see:

1. There is no significant sources independent of the subject's comments provided;

2. There is a total lack of any secondary biographical sources that detail why the subject is notable;

3. The article is largely comprised of quotes by the subject with reference to larger issues, but with no independent actions that make him notable.

Again, please adhere to the the civility policy. Please debate the issue of why this article should remain. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with DGG, it is hard for anyone to make an objective assessment of this article's value when you continuously disrupt it and the editors that try to contribute to it.--UltraMagnus (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I see you have failed to take note that the article has been altered by Sherurcij on September 10, 2008 in order to tone it down, and it has remained essentially untouched since that date? The article stands or falls on its own merit, or lack thereof, and the issues are notability/lack thereof, secondary biographical sources/lack thereof, and accomplishments/lack thereof. I think it would be better if you debated its value as it stands on those grounds. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close per DGG and UltraMagnus. Wikipedia and AfD are not supposed to be battlegrounds. Creating or nurturing a contentious environment are not helpful to a collaborative environment. -- Banjeboi 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benji: Thank you for your input. I agree, Afd is not supposed to be a battleground, and I have tried my very best to make this an actual debate on the issues on this page. So far, my attempts have failed in regards to people who want this article to remain.

So, I ask again that anyone who thinks this article should remain provide the reasons regarding why the article should remain. The issues are notability/lack thereof, secondary biographical sources/lack thereof, and accomplishments/lack thereof. If you feel the article's subject is notable, please articulate reasons why the subject is notable through his accomplishments from the sources. If you feel the sources are reliable and list these accomplishments in some sort of detail, please articulate why and how these sources are reliable and/or generally accepted. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I note that my suggestion to link the sources and facts stated in the article proposed for deletiom with articles already in existence has already been followed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_captives%27_mail_privileges#New_rules

In light of this fact (even though the link is obviously Coatrack as well), do we have a consenses? Delete the article, and simply merge the links into other sources on the larger issues when appropriate for reference.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] ? Megapixie (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megapixie: Thank you for the link. Do you have anything to add as to why this article should be kept along the lines of the issues presented and previously discussed? Thank you again. Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: [4]. Note that Magog edited it back to the original. I believe his opinion on the article has been stated previously. Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm curious about your WP:COI on this matter. Here you introduced links here that require a login that would typically only be used by a lawyer or a government employee (or perhaps a combination of both). Would you care to explain which you are ? Megapixie (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please debate the merits of the article, Mega. You too can have a Pacer Account if you would like to sign up for one, and your request for my identity is specifically rejected as outrageously inappropriate.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't deny that you might have a conflict of interest ? Megapixie (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I deny I have a conflict of interest. So, now that's behind us, kindly articulate a reason, other than a personal attack, why you think this article should remain. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is nearly 100% coatrack, and has been from the start. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG especially. The article's subject is notable enough for an article. The accusations of problems in the article are reason to fix those problems, not to delete. Also, Yachtsman1 has heavily vandalised the article (see e.g. this replacement of the content, this apparent use of an IP to avoid 3RR, this blanking, and this near-blanking). Besides the subject's clear notability, I am extremely reluctant to vote to delete when the nominator has vandalised the article, and this blatant personal attack, among other things, brings up serious concerns about whether the nomination is good-faith. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bart: I took my lumps for that, and you're right, it was wrong. There's nothing I can really do about it, and I have not repeated that course of action, nor will I do so in the future. If I had known about this feature when I joined the site, I would have put it up immediately upon seeing the article. In any event, I think I have placed forward a serious, good faith argument as to why this article should be deleted, which is set forth above and not worth rehashing.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article and Salt the nominator. Well, at least prohibit him from editing this article ever again. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thank you. What about the content? Is the subject "notable?" That's the question I would like answered. What is reflected within the article to show what he has "done" as opposed to "said." Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are a vandal with unclean hands. The evidence of your behavior in this case demonstrates that under no condition, even the complete and utter failure of this article to meet inclusion standards (which I do not assert, for the record) should your desire be granted. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Well, there it is then. Thank you for your position. I still think without a single edit, with no action whatosever from me, as it stood well before the actions you describe, this article would still violate template:coatrack and not involve a notable person.[5]the original versionYachtsman1 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as disrupted per DGG and UltraMagnus. Somebody should pound a stake into this AfD.John Z (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are some formatting issues, but there are reliable and verifiable sources that support a claim of notability based on his role with Guantanamo prisoners. The Wikipedia:Notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2008 (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.