Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Cerveny

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 merge to Guantanamo Bay detention camp. If further consensus decides that she is not worth mentioning in any existing article, then this page should be nominated at WP:RFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Cerveny

[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)

Attracted coverage, but I feel as part of WP:1E rather than the in-depth coverage and long-term significance of Cerveny herself. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2006 allegations of detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay or similar (or merge if there's an appropriate article) - this incident looks notable, but I have no idea why the article has been created as being about the person who reported it and this should have been cleaned up long ago. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As to why this wasn't written as an article on the event, rather than an article on the individual - something recommended in the BLP policy - the article was started before we had a BLP policy.

I suggest the title 2006 allegations of detainee abuse at Guantanamo Bay is far too broad. It was January 2006 when captives being force-fed started to be strapped, immobile, into restraint chairs, for hours on end. That abuse has nothing to do with Cerveny's affadavit, but would also seem to fit into an article with that title. Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move as per Nick-D's logic or merge into Guantanamo Bay detention camp. This page is not about Cerveny, but an event in which she played a role. Mztourist (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not keep - I will note that there is another BLP that is built largely (although a bit less solely) around the same incident Colby Vokey - which raises the question of whether that should be used as the redirect target, or whether that article should be dealt with as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- NatGertler, Both Cerveny and Colby Vokey filed the affadavit in 2006. While the inquiry the affadavit triggered may have damaged Vokey's military career, it may have enhanced his legal career.
  These later developments are not reflected in the article on Colby Vokey article. I started the Colby Vokey article. But I am not responsible for it not being kept up to date. As per WP:OWN, contributors release our contributions to the community. We don't own the articles we start. Keeping articles up to date is the responsibility of the entire community.
  More recent cases Vokey defended include:
1. Frank Wuterich, accused of leading an attack that killed 18 civilians, in three houses, while pursuing 4 Iraqi fighters, who turned out to have been in the last house. [1]
2. Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Kissoon , in command at Parris Island, when a recruit died the case was under consideration by the SCOTUS [2]
3. Mario Madera-Rodriguez charged with killing Green Beret Logan Melgar [3]
4. John Nettleton, commander of GTMO, accused of a coverup following the suspicious death of his married lover's husband. [4]
5. Eddie Gallagher, the former Navy SEALs subordinates broke ranks and reported incidents when they alleged he committed war crimes. Gallagher says his legal expenses were being covered by a non-profit that included Vokey on its Board. Gallagher fired Vokey, claiming he was dragging the case out, and not defending him adequately - because keeping his case ongoing was good for the non-profit's fund-raising. Vokey then pursued Gallagher for unpaid fees, and Gallgher counter-sued. [5]
I suggest Vokey's later high profile roles in other cases argues against simply combining this article with the Colby Vokey article. Geo Swan (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that should keep us from redirecting this page to the portion of his page that deals with the relevant matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough sourcing to justify an article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Options are split between delete, redirect, move or merge. Need more input to decide which.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Subject is clearly only notable for one event and there isn't enough significant coverage to prove she needs a standalone article. The event Ceverny is noted for has received significant coverage, however I still thinking merging the whole thing into the main Guantanamo Bay article is the best since there were a lot of large scale prison incidents that only ended up as a section on the prison article's page. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 09:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Others have made a solid argument that this was an event worth recording but that she should be merged into a broader topic Bgrus22 (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious BLP1E is obvious. That being said, I oppose a merge into the main Guantanamo Bay article; this is already a vast article with hundreds of sources. (A simple redirect would be acceptable.) Ravenswing 08:51, 25 July 2020 (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.