User:Geo Swan/BLPs started 2011-02 to 2012-08

This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's rough notes page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.

Background

There was a discussion, in 2011, over my use of allegation memos prepared by the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants (OARDEC). OARDEC was an independent agency set up by the US government to review the status of Guantanamo captives.

My use of these references was not a concern, when I first used them. As the wikipedia evolved, a growing number of contributors became concerned over my use of the OARDEC memos.

In 2011 User:Fences and windows initiated a discussion at a noticeboard, that concluded references to these documents did not establish notability, and should be used with caution.

There are contributors who assert I have a record of starting articles that do not comply with our policies or standards. I dispute this. There are contributors who assert I have a record of ignoring the 2011 discussion over sources, and continued to start articles that use references that don't measure up to our current standards.

From February 2011 to August 2012 I started 61 BLP articles.

Does the record of BLP articles I have created merit a topic-ban?

Several challengers have asserted that the record of BLP articles I created require an indefinite ban on BLP articles be imposed upon me.

If the justification for this topic ban is that I have started articles that don't comply with discussions from 2011, then it should be based on the articles I started since those discussions.

Only one of those articles has been nominated for deletion. David Con (judge) -- which I claim I had good reason to believe would be acceptable, as per the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Bechtold.

I don't think any of these articles shows bad faith. I don't think any of these articles shows terrible judgment, or resulted in a horrible waste of time.

For reasons I don't fully understand I seem to have acquired some critics who are very angry with me. I call upon my readers' basic sense of fairness. Even if, for the sake of argument, you don't think some of these individuals merit individual articles, and should be merged, or deleted, I suggest they don't show a record of the terrible bad judgment or terrible bad faith that should be necessary to trigger a topic ban.

bestselling authors, other award winners, other media personalities

Presiding Officers of Guantanamo military commission

As per the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Bechtold I started:

Both Amy Bechtold and David Conn (judge)) were deleted this year, at new {{afd}}, that reached a different conclusion than the previous {{afd}} -- so redirected the two other article.

heroes who have had coast guard vessels named after them

The acts of heroism these individuals were originally known for would generally not be sufficient to merit an individual article, as per WP:BLP1E.

Yered, for instance, was awarded a Silver Star, where only winning the Congressional Medal of Honor would have made him automatically notable.

I thought the subsequent naming of patrol vessels costing tens of millions of dollars constitued a "second event", and establish that BLP1E didn't apply.

Taliban leaders, former Taliban leader, suspected terrorists

Afghan politicians working for or with the Hamid Karzai administration

While some of these articles are brief, and, arguably, would not measure up to WP:GNG, they do measure up to WP:POLITICIAN.

There is overlap with the Taliban leaders group above, as a significant number of members of the Taliban's leadership have defected.

players in the Lingerie Football League

Notability is not inherited. Both these women have more famous relatives. But commentators said that their skills and seriousness, added to their famous relatives, would help lift the league from its former "peep show" image. I started these two articles based on those comments.

Cuban dissidents

These two anti-communist Cuban dissidents were among a group of about a dozen who sought political asylum at the Guantanamo Naval Base. They got word out that they felt they weren't being treated as political refugees, but were, rather, being treated as terrorists.

I may have jumped the gun, and started articles on these two, thinking more references would emerge, so I am userifying them today.

I suggest this does not show a pattern of problems that would require the drastic measure of a topic-ban.