 | This is anessay on thedeletion policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This is anessay onnotability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Nominating a biographical article for deletion isn't an insult to the subject, and should be looked at objectively. See#The bottom line. |
This essay outlines my opinions and feelings on the nomination of biographical articles for deletion and subsequent discussion(s), especially those pertaining to military personnel and those involved with recent warfare. These types of discussions can sometimes get very heated due to the high emotional stakes involved.
If you are reading this because I have nominated an article for deletion, readWikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!. Try to keep your cool andact civil in all discussion (nothing hurts your case worse than acting like a fool or abusive). to better understand the deletion process, readWikipedia:Guide to deletion.
In my experience, an article about a servicemember killed, wounded, or otherwise closely connected to a war is usually written by a relative, friend, or member of his/her unit. First off, theconflict of interest is immediate, and the emotional backlash is so hot that any actions that "threaten" the article are immediately regarded as hostile. The stakes run high, and usually made worse because the author(s) are almost always inexperienced with Wikipedia'sPolicies and guidelines, especially those regardingdeletion andnotability.
One of the worst parts is thislack of good faith. I'm aU.S. Marine, and I hate nominating an article about my brothers and sisters in arms. But people assume things about me and question my motives. I've been blasted about denigrating the honor of people who have fought for my freedom, as if I haven't done the same for them. My motives are never personal; I don't buy into inter-service rivalry, I don't try to hide or cover up things that embarass my country and fellows, and I don't try to minimize sacrifices made. I simply want articles on Wikipedia to fall in line with established policy and guidelines, even if I don't always agree with them. I'm not a bureaucratic bean-counter who mindlessly enforces empty law either, I actively try to seek exceptions and sometimes I willignore rules that don't make sense. However, don't mistake my reluctance to delete or willingness to discuss/compromise as weakness; I don't tolerate bullies and will defend my position reasonably. Incivillity towards me or others only hurts your attempts to save the article.
For me, a valid nomination for deletion is usually aboutnotability.
| “ | A topic ispresumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines [below] and is not excluded byWP:NOT.
...
| ” |
FromWikipedia:Notability (people):[6]
| “ | Thetopic of an article should benotable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[7]Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. ... Aperson is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[8]secondary source material which isreliable, intellectually independent,[9] and independent of the subject.[10]
People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria isnot conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more doesnot guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteriamay still be notable underWikipedia:Notability.
... When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.[13] If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such asGavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event inreliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example,George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects toRodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for exampleHoward Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage. For example,Steve Bartman redirects toSteve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, theTank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved. | ” |
FromWikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People:[14]
| “ | In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:
For the purposes of these criteria, a "substantial body of troops" refers to acapital ship, adivision or larger formation, or their historical equivalents. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. | ” |
For the record, I disagree somewhat with some of these provisions. I disagree with #2 in that I have consistanctly argued that aSilver Star lends just enough to often assure notability, but I've just as consistantly been voted down; the precedent firms up the curent consensus, and I am in the minority opinion. Likewise with #3, I don't think that stars are automatically enough; however, there isusually a positive correlation with being a flag officer and clauses 5, 6, and/or 7. I also posit that the definition of "substantial body of troops" can't be universally applied; abattalion is usually notable in theUnited States Marine Corps, but the minimum assumption is that of abrigade in the largerUnited States Army, and neither definition can be easily applied to thePeople's Liberation Army orAfghan National Army. I also note that clauses 7, 8, and 9 must be applied withWikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day in mind, and that credit for an invention, science, fad, or neologism doesn't equate to notibility, even if the concept is notable. I also refuse to considerbloggers as satisfying #9 unless they have established some serious credibility.
FromWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:[15]
| “ |
Wikipedia is not asoapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: 2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climbsoapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially forcurrent events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent aneutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister projectWikinews allows commentaries on its articles. ...
Wikipedia is not a social network likeMyspace orFacebook. You may not host your ownwebsite,blog, orwiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not: 4. Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfyWikipedia's notability requirements. Note that this policy does not apply outside of the mainarticle space. While using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died. At a minimum it is expected that they were regular contributors, and that more than one tenured Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after verification, of their death. Many of the content restrictions listed above apply to your user page and user talk page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it ablog. More importantly, your user page isnot yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. SeeUser page help for current consensus guidelines on user pages.
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.[16] Please seeWikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations,aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister projectWikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with havinglists if their entries are famousbecause they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (SeeWikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.) | ” |
Note that these policies and guidelines are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, an individual may failWP:GNG andWP:BIO, but passWP:MILPEOPLE and thus be notable (such asJason Dunham). Vice versa could be true, where an individual fails MILPEOPLE but passes GNG (such asChance Phelps).[18] Also note that other notability guidelines may apply, because military members tend to have careers after thier service is over (such asathletes,authors,businesspeople, andpoliticians).
Also note that thepolicy on biographies of living persons (BLP) isparamount andoverrules any other consideration.WP:BLP1E is frequently used to delete articles out of this consideration.Libel and/or anon-neutral point of view are unacceptable, but luckily, the are usually easy to fix without deletion. If you or an immediate relative are called for deletion, readWikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help; I consider a request from the subject (or his/her heirs) to be a primary consideration.
So, what does this mean to me when I consider deletion?
Simply being a soldier or sailor is not enough. Nor is participation in a war or campaign, deployment, or fighting in a specific battle or skirmish. Earning awards for valor is usually not enough unless it's the highest two, a significant number, or earned in an especially spectacular manner. Death in war, while tragic, does not confer notability.Notibility is not inherited by family or proximity. Being mentioned on unit rolls/rosters or on memorial sites does not establish notibility. Being mentioned in passing in a media work (such as film or book) isn't enough; there must some depth to it. Blogging or being filmed/photographed doesn't cut it. A person's life before/after military serivce that is independant of that service may have independant notability, but if not, adding the two is usually not enough for notability either. When considering a person notable for a single event, living or not, I am forced to use my judgement regarding the notability of that event and the person's involvement therein.
I avoid nominating or voteing to delete based on actionable issues unless it is very serious (such as copyright or BLP). I figure it's better to have a mess that is going to be improved than nothing at all. That means thatManual of Style issues are not a valid deletion rationale to me. Likewise, I consider the distinction between notability and fame/noteriety. Consider the lasting impact of notability: is the person going to be known to more than a specific group? Will he or she be known years from now, or ever featured in a historic work?
Often, authors attempt to negotiate a compromise. However, these are almost never feasible. Either an individual has notability or he/she does not, and there isn't much for an individual to do about it.
Ironically enough, I regard myself as aninclusionist, and I take aeventualist view of article quality. This means that an article I nominate for deletion is not done on a whim, nor is it done with regards to the quality of the article. I believe that any article, no matter how broken or poorly writtencan be salvaged with careful editing if the appropriatereliable sources andreferences are available (with the only exception ofWP:copyright violations; seethe OTRS if you submitted your own copywritten material). But even an article of exceptional quality can lack sufficient proof notability to be included in Wikipedia, so further editing does not resolve the issue. If a person is notable, therewill be published refrences somewhere about him or her. If they aren't, I willexplain why in the deletion rationale.
Often, I'm willing to consider amerge and/orredirect. Sometimes, the event is more notable than the individual, and the article can be converted from a biography. Other times, the person's noteriety is linked to somebody or something else, and a redirect is a worthy idea because it could be a valid search term (especially when the person is featured on some sort of media, such as a TV short).
Ultimately, however, articles I nominate for notability tend to get deleted, and I don't usually stick my neck out for an unsound rationale. There is considerable precedent for the kinds of nominations I make. If the article is deleted and you still disagree, you can try talking to the closing administrator, orDeletion review.
I'm not trying to disrespect or insult anyone, especially the fallen. Any negative opinions I have about individuals is not expressed on Wikipedia. If I've nominated an article you've written for deletion,don't take it personally. If I vote in a deletion discussion in a way you disagree with, follow the same advice. Think objectively about refuting my arguments with evidence and policy. If I'm wrong or you uncover something I was unaware of, I will note my change of mind and withdraw the nom/change my vote as necessary. Don't try to bully or lecture me, and don'tappeal to my emotions. If we come to an impasse, recognize it and end a futile argument that is unlikely to be productive.