Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LynndieEngland

Incident is already covered extensively in Abu Ghraib (prison). I've orphaned it.--Eloquence * 03:42, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

comment. Should it be orphaned before discussion? --bodnotbod 16:39, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I actually was looking for this page once when it did not yet exist. -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete, and I welcome other comments here. I question whether it's noteworthy to dedicate an article to her. I understand that she is part of very significant issue, but she's not really a central player. 15 minutes of fame kind of thing.Alcarillo 15:23, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Take the point about whether she should have her own article, but Wikipedia does not lack space. Will also impress newcomers to the site. --bodnotbod 16:36, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Like Chris 73, I looked for this page before it existed. - MykReeve 18:13, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMO, this is a good example of "Wiki is not paper." In ten years when she's still cooling her heels in Leavenworth and everyone's forgotten who she is, maybe she'll be merged in somewhere, but for now, why not? Isomorphic 03:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the inclusionist bias on VfD sure has increased since the last time I checked. This is an obvious example of a page that will date quickly and is completely redundant, and will likely be neglected in favor of the main article. The only thing this person is famous for is abusing Iraqis. A top candidate for a redirect, in my not so humble opinion, and we probably have hundreds of precedents for this. But if you insist on putting her on display, I guess that's a befitting punishment.--Eloquence* 06:22, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe what you are seeing is not "inclusionist bias" but popular opinion to keep an article about a person who is "only" known for abusing Iraqis. In my view that would be enough. As someone else has said, Wiki is not paper. But she has been instrumental in changing peoples' opinions, in reinforcing dislike of the USA in the Middle East. As a UK Arabic newspaper is saying: This is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Paul Beardsell 00:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make a redirect to Abu Ghraib (prison). -- Schnee 12:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's one of the most infamous people in the world right now. Stargoat 16:47, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Famous people need biographical articles, regardless of whether they are discussed elsewhere. There is certainly more to be said about her than would be appropriate in the Abu Ghraib article. Everyking 18:55, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's become _the_ icon (Whether that was justified or not doesn't mather) of the Abu Ghraib (prison) scandal. Her "fame" should be reflected in Wikipedia. --Bjorn H Bergtun 19:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a suggestion. It might be unsafe for her to have so much info about her be plainly available. If you don't care that's fine. But if Wikipedia is percieved to be at fault, maybe we could lose everything?
Keep. We absolutely have the luxury, in Wikipedia, of having as much granularity of article as we like, and also the luxury of redundancy between articles; there would be no problem with wide overlap with Abu Ghraib (prison). The article should, however, be listed on cleanup. (Oh. And since she has just had worldwide front page coverage, I don't think a listing in wikipedia is going to decrease her safety. However I take the implied point that we should stop libelling her before she has been found guilty of something. An alleged would go down a storm.) --Tagishsimon
Keep. What Everyking said covers my view as well. Fredrik 00:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's good to look at the individuals behind the abuse in Abu Ghraib. pir 10:39, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One dimension of the Abu Ghraib affair is the backgrounds of the soldiers involved. This article adds a level of detail about her that would be inappropriate in the Abu Ghraib (prison) article. JamesMLane 11:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and de-orphan. Contains valuable content that would be inappropriate in Abu Ghraib (prison). -- Seth Ilys 14:43, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Why delete articles just because they faces the war crimes of your own country? There is an article on other infamous persons like Adolf Eichmann here, although such issues are covered in other articles as well. Jeez
Keep. I can see her continued to be mentioned in debates for a considerable time and people should have access to unbiased details regarding her. From reports I have read this could well bring up the Women in the armed services arguments again as the alleged relationship with Graner appears to in some way have influenced matters.Scraggy4 15:46, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. →Raul654 15:55, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
keep. Wikipedia is littered with the biographies of minor celebrities and non-entities whom most people have never heard of. One more shouldn't make any difference. ChicXulub 17:02, May 8, 2004 (GMT)
keep. This, err, lady has played a central role in a disclosure that has changed the perspective of the liberation/invasion of Iraq and in Rumsfeld accepting the blame for something/anything! When she becomes insignificant and unremembered then have another vote but I am likely to vote keep again. Paul Beardsell 18:12, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reasons as Everyking. Andres 18:15, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep and expand article. Her vile actions propelled her into the public spotlight. It is very important to document acts of torture like the ones she committed so that others can learn and make connections between the present day war in Iraq and historic examples of torture like the holocaust. VTEX 20:09, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely Keep and expand article. Her vile actions made it possible for those with no sense of proportion and no concept of the enormity of the holocaust to score cheap political points and defame the United States. - Humbug 22:01, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above is a sockpuppet →Raul654 02:19, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
Merge with Abu Ghraib (prison). -- Kaihsu 20:15, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
Keep. I have no idea, even after reading these comments, why anyone would think this page should be deleted. Wiki is not paper. -Rwv37 21:54, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I see absolutely no valid reasons to remove it. MikeCapone 23:47, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The "anti-Jessica Lynch" definitely deserves a page. This might be the woman who brings down a president. --M4-10 02:21, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]