|This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.|
|This essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the topic of notability. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.|
|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, read Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!. Try to keep your cool and act civil in all discussion (nothing hurts your case worse than acting like a fool or abusive). to better understand the deletion process, read Wikipedia: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, the conflict 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's Policies and guidelines, especially those regarding deletion and notability.
One of the worst parts is this lack of good faith. I'm a U.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 will ignore 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 about notability.
|“||A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines [below] and is not excluded by WP:NOT.
|“||The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia: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.
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 as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable 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 to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard 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 to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.
|“||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:
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 a Silver 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 is usually 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; a battalion is usually notable in the United States Marine Corps, but the minimum assumption is that of a brigade in the larger United States Army, and neither definition can be easily applied to the People's Liberation Army or Afghan National Army. I also note that clauses 7, 8, and 9 must be applied with Wikipedia: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 consider bloggers as satisfying #9 unless they have established some serious credibility.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, 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 "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
4. Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article 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 a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. See User page help for current consensus guidelines on user pages.
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Please see Wikipedia: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 project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because 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. (See Wikipedia: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 fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO, but pass WP:MILPEOPLE and thus be notable (such as Jason Dunham). Vice versa could be true, where an individual fails MILPEOPLE but passes GNG (such as Chance Phelps). Also note that other notability guidelines may apply, because military members tend to have careers after thier service is over (such as athletes, authors, businesspeople, andpoliticians).
Also note that the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) is paramount and overrules any other consideration. WP:BLP1E is frequently used to delete articles out of this consideration. Libel and/or a non-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, read Wikipedia: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 that Manual 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 an inclusionist, and I take a eventualist 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 written can be salvaged with careful editing if the appropriate reliable sources and references are available (with the only exception of WP:copyright violations; see the 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, there will be published refrences somewhere about him or her. If they aren't, I will explain why in the deletion rationale.
Often, I'm willing to consider a merge and/or redirect. 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, or Deletion 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't appeal to my emotions. If we come to an impasse, recognize it and end a futile argument that is unlikely to be productive.
- Revision as of 00:06, 10 November 2010
- Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English.
- Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
- Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
- Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
- Revision as of 22:09, 11 November 2010
- Encarta dictionary definition Retrieved 13 March 2008
- What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
- Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
- Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.
- Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.
- Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
- It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low profile individuals.
- Revision as of 20:04, 26 October 2010
- Revision as of 13:47, 10 November 2010
- This provision is not intended to encompass lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject.
- See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404
- In the interests of transparency, I will disclose that I am heavily involved in the editing of both example articles (Jason Dunham & Chance Phelps).
- User:Uncle G/On notability
- Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
- Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?
- User:Pmanderson/I have a girlfriend but she lives in Canada
- Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments and Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability/Essay
- Wikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself
- This essay was featured, in an abridged form, as an editorial for the November 2010 issue of the Bugle, the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Military history