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 keep. Consensus seems to be that national-level appellate judges are notable ex officio.  Sandstein  17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Bechtold[edit]

Amy Bechtold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Her only claim to notability is that she is a member of the United States Court of Military Commission Review a marginally notable government commission. The first reference in the article only includes her name in a list of appointees and the second reference will not load. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Icewedge (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete and removeComment Consider moving content to stub United States Court of Military Commission Review; this is an unnecessary WP:CFORK.It also lacks contextually important biographical data (Is it WP:BLP that allows for the omission of biographical data from so many BLPs, basic things like birthdays, hometowns nationalities etc?), which would otherwise be redeeming as is the case with Frank J. Williams or Griffin Bell. Actually several of the other judges' articles should be deleted according to this criteria.Synchronism (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)(refactor-Synchronism (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Edward G. Beister Jr. Withdrawn.
• William T. Coleman Jr. Withdrawn.
• Lisa Schenck Withdrawn.

• Merge all articles with United States Court of Military Commission Review. Not enough references to be a standalone article - WP:FORK, per Synchronism. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 01:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Keep Amy Bechtold to United States Court of Military Commission Review and mention her colonelship there per improvements to article. JJL (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Excuse me, but doesn't Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians list professions who should be considered notable -- should be exempted from discussions over whether they are notable?

"People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges."

If the wikipedia encodes official policies and guidelines, isn't it a mistake to ignore them? Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment the article asserts her notability as being based on her membership in a commission. There's too little info. there to justify it as a stand-alone article; a redirect maintains it until someone expands it. The minimal info. on her can be merged to the target article. JJL (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Bechtold isn't just a former JAG officer -- She was the Chief Judge of the Air Forces Court of Military Review. in other words -- one of the USAF's very most senior JAG officers. Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- One of the justifications offered for deletion was that the nominator had found one of the article's reference had gone 404. Since when has a references going 404 been a justification for deletion of an entire article? Anyhow, multiple sites hosted that article, and the article now cites one from Harvard since the one from MIT went dark. Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- this nomination calls the United States Court of Military Commission Review a "marginally notable government commission" -- as if everyone agreed that this was an established fact. Well, heck no. When did everyone agree to this? What I think we all need to recognize is that complying with WP:NPOV both prevents us from inserting biased material into articles, based solely on our personal point of view -- it should prevent us from deleting material from the wikipedia based solely on our personal point of view. The Bush administration, in its defense of its Guantanamo policies, have very strongly pushed the interpretation that everything that happens at Guantanamo is mundane, ordinary, predictable, and fully consistent with both the USA's own laws and the USA's international obligations. Congress didn't agree -- that is why it passed the Detainee Treatment Act. The Supreme Court didn't agree -- that is why it over-ruled the Presidency in three separate cases. Many respected experts don't agree. The wikipedia is not the GeorgeWBushopedia. We are not supposed to only cover the Bush administration version of things. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- So, is the background of the individual judges on the Commission significant, worth coverage? Sure. How independent are they? Critics challenged their independence. Critics mocked the unpreparedness of the Court of Military Commission Review. Brownback and Allred surprised everyone when they dropped the charges against both captives who faced charges on 2007-06-04. No one had expected that any appeals would be made to the Court until after sentences had been handed down. The full set of judges for the Court hadn't been appointed. And the Court's rules of operation hadn't been established. Critics ridiculed newly appointed members, members appointed solely because Brownback and Allred had dropped the charges on procedural grounds could used rules of operation that were not yet established and still reach a demonstrably fair decision. Just as this is not the Bushopedia, we shouldn't be taking a stand on the credibility and character of the judges. But, I suggest, what we know about the judges definitely is not of marginal importance. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- for the reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, historical notability of the Guantanamo military commissions rivals that of Nuremberg and ((Nuremberg Trial judges)) shows that each of them was given an undisputed Wiki article. Often people judge "current" events as though they are less "historic" than past events; and in this case I think it is a mistake. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of notability mostly. I do hope the article will be expanded though. -Synchronism (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The practice for US judges is fairly well established. At the federal level, all US district court judges and their specialized equivalent are notable--there are only a few hundred of them total at any one time. These people here are the approximate equivalents of US federal appeals court judges, who are certainly and unquestionably notable. Bio details can be found and added, but the important part will be their decisions. I don't think judging this depends upon ones political viewpoint even from the Conservopedia standpoint, these people would be clearly notable--especially notable even. From the postulated GWBushopedia, even more so. I wish GeoSwan had not raised that argument. The US judges who are not notable are the ones at the level of US Magistrates. (At the US State level, the practice is that judges of courts of appellate jurisdiction are notable--what they are called varies from state to state & onecannot go by title.) DGG (talk) 23:24, 11 November 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.