Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Strickland (2nd nomination)

Ben Strickland

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:Soldier. All I can find for WP:RS is a single Navy Times article discussing his whistle blowing activity and claims regarding retaliation. The remainder of the sources listed are either routine coverage of the ships he was on and just passing mentions of his name, no significant coverage. The article seems to just be a way to push the POV that he was wronged by the USCG. I don't know if he was or wasn't, but either way, the situation only garnered a single news story and an Amazon.com book that was self published. I thank him for his service in the USCG, but it's mostly routine service similar to thousands of other soldiers and sailors. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the first deletion was for a football coach named Ben Strickland, there a number of hits on EBSCO for that Strickland, but not for this Ben Strickland. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:COATRACK. It is plausible that he was hard done by, but we're not the place to blaze the trail in Righting Great Wrongs. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the recommendation to delete the Ben Strickland article because the reasons given are not accurate. The book "The Case of CDR Benjamin Strickland" was not self-published. The book was written by Judge L. Steverson, USALJ (Ret). In order to be self- published, it would have had to be written by Benjamin Strickland. That would seem to be intuitively obvious. Even assuming arguendo that it was self-published, that in no way detracts from the truth or accuracy of the facts contained therein. Books are written for posterity as well as profit. Also, there appears to be an inherent bias against Amazon.com books. Thousands of great books are available from Amazon.com General Petraeus' book is available on Amazon.com. Moreover, the Claims of Whistle blower Retaliation have been accepted for redress of grievance by several Governmental Boards and Agencies set up to screen cases and to grant relief. That would render moot any allegation that Ben Strickland is not a "Whistle blower". Neither quantity nor quality of main stream media notice or the lack thereof can nullify that fact. To allege otherwise evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of the Governmental Administrative Process. I do not perceive the "sour grapes" POV (point of view) as the dominant theme of the article. To get that perception, one would have to be predisposed to look along those lines. The Commander's service was, by no means, routine. Out of 35,000 people he was one of only two people with the unique set of skills to perform a particularly high level job that the Service needed. The overriding animus expressed for the Commander and driving this nomination for deletion appears to be a spillover from the disdain that is rampant in the USA today for our military and its members.