Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Elliott Sommer

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 no consensus to delete. But article needs work, preferably by people who don't know the subject personally. "I was there" or "call me" is not an acceptable source for a Wikipedia article, this stuff needs to be sourced to published articles on this person/incident. Those articles appear to exist, it's just a matter of catching our article up to them. W.marsh 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Elliott Sommer

This article needs to be rethought. Reliable sources do exist, though not for much of what is here, which is based on this person's now-removed blog. But when it comes down to it, despite some media attention, this is someone accused of a relatively run-of-the-mill felony who may or not have some very controversial opinions. There is no Wikipedia:Notability (criminals) that I know of, so let's hash this one out. Chick Bowen 03:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually everything in that article is verifiable in reliable sources with the exception of two things:

1.)The "counter argument" to the U.S. attorney's "seed money for larger criminal enterprise" theory. Added by another editor, it may well be verifiable, but I haven't checked the sources yet.

2.)Those things that were directly quoted from the blog but no longer exist.

I know this because I've been working on this on the weekends and my next step was to figure out which sources to cite for which points. I'm also new to wikipedia, and not sure how heavy a citation method need to be employed, citation being very inconsistent over the whole 'pedia, but every section that was revised under my signature can be traced to multiple sources of record that are also readily available online. Again, I'm new to wikipedia, but I find it strange that someone can begin a challenge with an unfounded claim against the article's verifiable matter. Rather than say make a blanket judgement of "much of what is here" why not bring up your concerns of veracity on the discussion page?

As for the "run-of-the-mill"-ness claim versus the participating authors' claim to Sommer's significance, I find the objector's frank dismissal fairly callous. In your book, bank robberies perpetrated by groups consisting of mostly active duty rangers employing automatic weapons allegedly smuggled back from Iraq, possibly under a political pretext (or at least the ringleader is lodging a political pretext as the core to his defense) is somehow run-of-the-mill? At the very least Sommers figures as an illustration of American culture so affected by the Iraq prison abuse scandals and Black site scandel mythology (not to mention the tarnishing of the military's reputation in many eyes post Pat Tillman, and Sy Hersch's journalistic numbers of Task Force 121) that a run-of-the-mill criminal is using that political climate to extradite himself from a extradition, so to speak. In other words, at the very least he's a sort of zeitgeist figure. By the way, there is a List of famous bank robbers and robberies which Sommers could easily fall under, due to his background, media attention, and (at the least) unorthodox extradition defense.

By your logic, I fear all the articles on military personnel facing court martials for run of the mill dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming charges in opposition to the war (Ehren Watada, Jeremy Hinzman, Pablo Paredes etc.]].--Cheesesteak the Impaler 04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination was intended to be measured and as neutral as could be under the circumstances. Please note that an article like this (see WP:BLP for the relevant policy) has to be sourced with extreme care; I would recommend using the <ref> markup described at WP:CITE, and connecting everything to established media sources; I don't see how you can reference the blog. As for the general notability, I stand by what I said--I'm not sure whether this person is appropriate for inclusion, and I'd like to get others' opinions on that. This is a request for feedback, nothing more. Chick Bowen 05:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contestation of your nomination is also measured and neutral, but does find some flaws in the thinking the nomination is predicated upon. I am aware of the extreme care sourcing requires, which is why I have saved it for another weekend (editing it out of its original form into something that resembled coherence was my first priority). I have no problem ridding the blog section that is no longer verifiable (though I'll poke around archive.org before I do so), though a lot of it has been quoted and encapsulated in a lot of media outlets, but what matter is only in the section of the article that directly discusses his blog. Lastly, I believe wikipedia's coverage of other run-of-the-mill military delinquents as I sighted, and a number of pages collecting perpetrators of noteworthy crimes, including bankrobbery, serves as an initial if not definitive counterargument to your run-of-the-mill dismissal. I'm not critiquing your neutrality, I am critiquing your "measure". That is, your estimation of the article's worth.--Cheesesteak the Impaler 05:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My take is that the bank robbery is almost certainly notable (very few bank robbers have been active duty military), and in that article there should be information about all the accused, including Sommer. The information about his blog is trivial and most of this article is of little interest to someone not following every turn of the case. I'm not sure that AFD was the best choice here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Blog portion was started when the blog was still active. Yes it needs to be updated. But deleting this file is not the best method. Lets revise it and continue from there.
Comment. Your right Chick, there may not be a category for criminals. But that is fine, considering he is not a criminal, he is an accused. The bottom line is this: whether he robbed a bank, or not; he is worthy of note because of the impact he has caused. His getting ruled a Canadian resident after being in the United States for three years is case law that will be cited in future cases for tax disputes and future extradition hearings. The fact that his platoon has had SIX felony accusations within six months, and NINE within his company speaks volumes about a larger problem within our military. I personally have interviewed Sommer and I know a lot of the deeper details to the story, but I will continue to provide facts and nothing more. However it is important to remember that unilateral action taken upon an assumption... is what started the war we are in.Powerofhistory 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. So when Special Operations Commandos, verified to be a part of one of the most protected military Task Forces since the inception of the war, rob a bank with illegal, high powered weapons... alleging that their former unit was involved with murder, rape and abuse... it isn't notible? I know Sommer quite well, I served with him in Afghanistan and I am glad that so many people have taken the time to update this, but will someone please inform me why this didn't get more media attention? North Hollywood Shootout was famous for one reason... someone pulled the trigger... And you want to pull the plug on this page because unlike the idiots in hollywood, he used intelligence and didn't go in spraying rounds... Well my two, emotionally charged cents. I never saw rape or beating, but I saw people killed legally under the Rules of Engagement that NEVER should have died. Do what you need to man.TFredFormer 06:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is notable, and the key negative info about the subject is reliably sourced. This is major news and there is no basis for omitting it. Even before conviction, this is justifiable BLP, , though of course a good deal will need to be added as the case progresses. DGG 00:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when are we going to decide one way or the other?24.71.204.118 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't believe for a second the media has not given this story enough attention -- they have, but that should not be confused with the fact that the attention has not turned into more published articles. A very big problem with information available (for the media) is that much of it is not verifiable (a hallmark of good journalism). If journalists are having trouble verifying information (and thus not reporting it), it stands to reason that the question of whether to delete this entry from wikipedia (because of lack of verification) has come up. Personally, after having spent scores and scores of hours with Elliott Sommer, I have to say that this is a most notable story and there will be far more coming of it in due course. Sure, bank robberies are every day occurrences, but you have a situation where five elite Army Rangers were allegedly involved in some degree with this particular robbery, plus two Canadian citizens. This occurred on U.S. soil by two Canadians and one dual Canadian/American. You also have the situation where Sommer made it across the border and is under house arrest, protected by extradition proceedings and claiming all the while that "if he did it", it was to draw attention to war crimes. That isn't notable? Writerdave 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)writerdave[reply]

Comment: If these sources need any credible citation, I and many people I know can give it, for I am a friend of his...don't think for a fact that a military serviceman committing armed bank robbery is not worthy of Wikipedia! User: RikerDelta2 04:16, 4 February 2007

Comment: I have been watching this page unfold for a while, and I have to admit, it's amazing how much people known about me all things considered. I will not state an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not, but I will say that I am willing to give the yay or nay to anything people want to ask. My contact information is elliott@hamedia.ca and my phone number is 8664274660. If necessary I will confirm my information on the phone. RIkerDelta2 there are only a couple people I could think of that would use Riker and Delta in their names... call me.ElliottSommer 00:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this and a lot of the military vouching is interesting, nonetheless, getting direct verification from Sommer himself, participants in his alleged action, or people who have served with him would pretty much constitute original research and not something wikipedia can vette. The initial ADF call of the article was based on the false claim that many of the article's assertions couldn't be backed by reputatble sources. Reputable sources doesn't mean from the horse's mouth. It means things like "Papers of Record." The deletionist who opened this discussion is right in what an article needs (and the article needs proper citation), he was just wrong in how unsourced the info in the article is. It looks like the consensus here is to allow the article to continue to exist under the understanding that it will be revised to reflect proper citation of verifiable source material (and again, "just call him at this number" or "I was there" isn't a statement of record. It's gotta be in print or online somewhere reputable. This is why everything in the blog has to be pulled out, since with no blog to cite it's just hearsay.)--Cheesesteak the Impaler 02:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. In the mean time, let us get rid of the hideous label at the top of this page and someone who knows enough about the situation start editing. I do not feel in good conscious that I can have any part considering that in and of itself would cast serious doubt on "neutral point of view." Cheesteak, I have no idea who you are but you have taken a commanding interest in this issue. If there is information you would like put into a newspaper or another article let me know. Rolling stone is publishing in a week and a half and I may be able to answer a question in it for you if you take the time to ask ahead of time.ElliottSommer 05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be in touch with a more experienced wiki editor, who has some more administrative clout to make sure we're removing the tag in accordance with wiki policy, and also mentor us in proper citation formatting (I've seen footnotes, I've also seen just lists of works cited, we'll see what the "right" way to do things is to keep the article's nose clean). Also, as we start editing the article in good faith, I'll be using the discussion section particularly for source citations of various points. A lot of editors seem to have a lot of info on Sommer, I'll see if I can keep an eye on when we need to corroborate what is put forth in the article with a "reputable source." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cheesesteak the Impaler (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 February 2007 (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.