Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Harman

:{{la|Sabrina Harman}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Harman}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Sabrina Harman}})

OK. This will be contentious, but I think this is a classic WP:BLP1E

The Abu Graib prisoner abuse is notable and noted elsewhere. But is each of several US reservists convicted worthy of a negative BLP? I can't see any other conditions where someone given a 6month sentence and famous for nothing but the crime would get a bio. As I say, the event is notable, the perpetrators are not individually notable.

There may be other related articles worth adding to this.Scott Mac 14:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Harman has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent news sources, stretching from 2003 when the actions in question took place until the present, shown by [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=sabrina+harman&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=2003&as_user_hdate=2010&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a 1550 instances] of coverage at Google News archive . In 2010 alone, so far, she has [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22sabrina+harman%22&num=10&as_price=p0&as_user_ldate=2003&as_user_hdate=2010&scoring=a&hl=en&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2010/01&as_hdate=2010/12&lnav=hist7 32 instances] of news coverage per Google News archive, proving the continuing interest in and coverage of her actions and their consequences. Google Book Search shows [http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1,bkv:a&tbo=p&q=%22sabrina+harman%22&num=10 527] hits for Sabrina Harman. According to one [http://books.google.com/books?id=MdIEqP3sz6kC&pg=PA70&dq=%22sabrina+harman%22&hl=en&ei=x_hrTOGRK829nAeiz8n7Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22sabrina%20harman%22&f=false extended review of Harman's life in a book], she was interviewed by CNN in 2004 and by the news program 20/20 in 2005, which is not the behavior I would expect of a person seeking to "disappear" from public notice. She is given prominent coverage in a number of books about women in modern warfare, such as [http://books.google.com/books?id=jWWdwas04KsC&pg=PA195&dq=%22sabrina+harman%22&hl=en&ei=x_hrTOGRK829nAeiz8n7Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22sabrina%20harman%22&f=false]. Her tearful apology at her trial is cited as a model of an effective apology in the book "Effective Apology: Mending Fences, Building Bridges, and Restoring Trust(2009)" [http://books.google.com/books?id=xUgh0Adjj4QC&pg=PA70&dq=%22sabrina+harman%22&hl=en&ei=r_xrTL_zH9WLnQfgyOGQAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=%22sabrina%20harman%22&f=false pages 69-70], showing her continuing importance in our culture. Harman receives extended coverage in the high school history textbook "Understanding American Government, Alternate Edition (2009)" [http://books.google.com/books?id=IjmSwfQl38oC&pg=PA403&dq=%22sabrina+harman%22&hl=en&ei=vPprTLqTJ8G_nAeM3LXYAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22sabrina%20harman%22&f=false page 403], showing that she clearly satisfies WP:BIO more convincingly than 90% of the persons with Wikipedia biographies. The nominator says one reason to delete is that she just got a 6 month sentence, but others got sentences of ten years and three years. "The Lucifer Effect(2008)" [http://books.google.com/books?id=vjeHCA6i4IAC&pg=PA411&dq=%22sabrina+harman%22&hl=en&ei=r_xrTL_zH9WLnQfgyOGQAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=%22sabrina%20harman%22&f=false page 273] by psychologist Phil Zimbardo says Harman got the 6 month sentence because of evidence presented of prior acts of kindness toward Iraqis, which partially offset her improper actions toward prisoners, such as attaching wires to the hooded man standing on the box in the classic photo. The balance of good versus evil done by a person resulting in a particular sentence in no way is the proper basis to judge notability of a criminal. This is not just some embarrassing incident which the world will forget if the Wikipedia article about the individual is removed, so BLP1E is not that relevant. Edison (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

:Hm, but most of these sources just name her in the context of discussing the incidents. As for the "interview" your source says "a brief interview was published (CNN) after she was charged". That's just a snippet in the newscycle not really evidence of courting public notice. What the loss by replacing this with a redirect to the article on the incident, the impact, and the resulting trials?--Scott Mac 15:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

::You omitted to mention the interview with 20/20 in 2005, also covered in the citation. There is no policy or guideline which limits Wikipedia to a single article about every individual related to a notable event when some of the individuals satisfy WP:BIO. Harman has [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22sabrina+harman%22&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks:1,bkv:a,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+2009,cd_max:Dec+31_2+2010&ei=ZQBsTP_dAoOlnQfv46D3Ag&start=10&sa=N 80 instances of coverage in books just in 2009-2010], showing it was not just "a snippet in the news cycle" in 2003. If you wish to argue for merging the articles, AFD is not the proper way to do it. See Wikipedia:Merging. The torturers were not the same, they were not interchangeable. They had different backgrounds, they engaged in different actions, they received different sentences, and their legacy in our culture is different. We are not limited to one article on all the athletes playing for a professional sports team, or all the musicians in a band, even though in those two cases the individuals actions are more tightly directed and they function as more of a clear team. That is not our policy on biographies. Edison (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

:::I was arguing for deletion. However, I'm listening to your case now. I think the questions needs to be what's a) the best organisation of the material for us b) fair to the subject of the BLP, who has the rest of her life ahead of her. Screaming about policy and proceedure doesn't get us far. As I say, I'm open to thinking. (BTW, it may be your culture, it certainly isn't mine).--Scott Mac 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - I felt this one deserved more than usual consideration. However, the sole sound argument for keeping this page is that the incident the subject is associated with he strongly notable, but that in a way biases sourcing since most of the are generally about the Abu Ghraib incident with her name mentioned, or a story about convictions which are only significant in context of that. BLP1E does indeed apply, in my opinion. Specific comments I wish to respond to:

:"The balance of good versus evil done by a person resulting in a particular sentence in no way is the proper basis to judge notability of a criminal."

:It is impossible to measure or quantify either good or evil, assuming you could even create such a duality for the purposes of a Wikipedia deletion debate. However, it is a reasonable factor that she received a conviction that is otherwise minor and only gains any attention due to association with Abu Ghraib.

:"This is not just some embarrassing incident which the world will forget if the Wikipedia article about the individual is removed"

:I can only assume "this" refers to the Abu Ghraib incident, which is not up for deletion. That article has a fairly assured future at Wikipedia. However, the individual herself is of almost zero historical notability, nor does her biography play any factor in the events. I ask in all seriousness, does the fact that she managed a pizzeria truly matter to the events she was a part of? At all? The preceding information regarding her family seems like it is attempting to establish some pathology in the subject, but without citation to show that this is the case it too is simply trivia and possibly even weaseling in some armchair psychology. The rest of the article is nothing that wouldn't be served better under the Abu Ghraib article, if it deserves to be mentioned at all (that's a debate for the editors of that article to decide). Bottom line, I don't feel we are attempting to expunge the past here, since there would likely be little objection to mentioning her within the Abu Ghraib article, but she does not merit a separate article.

:I feel I should point out that there are countless articles on Wikipedia about undisputably notable events, deeds, or creations/inventions which mention persons who are noteworthy enough to mention within that article but not at all notable enough to create a complete separate article about. This is one of those cases. - OldManNeptune (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse per WP:BLP1E. IMO, only Charles Graner and Lynndie England merit their own articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect she is only notable because of the singular event, that is where she recieves her notability.Sadads (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom and WP:BLP1E. I agree that in the scope of her life, she is notable only for the one event, which is covered significantly on other articles. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:08, 20 August 2010 (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.