Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam C. Winfield
After leaving my "keep" opinion above I did some work fixing the bare-naked URLs in this article, and in the article on the ringleader, Calvin Gibbs.  The comment has been made above that Winfield was just "one of twelve" alleged perpetrators, and that whatever was worthy of coverage about them should be covered in one article, about ''"the event"''.  I don't think we have enough detail to flesh out articles on all twelve alleged perpetrators, and I suggest the also-rans should be covered in an article that included the base where the murders occurred.  The murders occurred when the GIs, all in Company B, where stationed at Forward Operating Base Ramrod.  So, I think they should be covered in an article with a title like, ''"FOB Ramrod murder conspiracy"''. The way I see it, an association with the conspiracy is not a "one event".  The three murders we have heard about were spread over a four month period.  Why shouldn't each be considered a separate event?  As Iqinn noted above, Winfield is reported to have tried blow the whistle on the genuine perps.  Winfield is not the only whistleblower.  Three days after the third murder a newly arrived recruit tried to report that murder, and was severely beaten.  The rings crimes came to light after the beating of that second whistleblower was investigated.  In addition to the murders the ring is alleged to have, kept body parts of their victims' corpses, as trophies, robbed civilians and to have indulged in heavy use of hashish, which, like opium, is cheap and plentiful in Afghanistan.The way I see it, as of September 16, 2010, Gibbs, and Winfield merit individual articles.  The rest should be covered in an article on the ring, which should have a {{tl|seealso}}s for Gibbs and Winfield. Additional individuals may merit coverage in separate articles, as more details emerge.Another contributor refers us to the  section of otability (people).  They quoted a passage from that section: ''"Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. '''Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured.'''"''  As I wrote above, the wikipedia currently contains articles on something like one million individuals.  I think we should know, by now, how to write articles on alleged perps, without implying their guilt had been proved.  We should consider not creating an article on Winfield, ''"until a conviction is secured"''?  OK, what does the rest of the section say?  The third of the three numbered points in the section says: {{quotation|"'''The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event.''' Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime, as above
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:PERP||WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)