Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/November 2010/Editorials
|
Nominating military biographies for deletion, by bahamut0013 (adapted from User:Bahamut0013/deletion) |
Have an idea for the next editorial? We welcome all submissions—for more details, please visit the
newsroom!
As part of our mission on writing an encyclopedia, we sometimes have to weed out articles that don't meet our criteria. The WP:Articles for deletion (AfD) process is one of the most common methods, and can be intimidating to the uninitiated. Even veteran editors can be caught up in a very heated discussion due to the high emotional stakes involved. The best thing to do is to keep your cool, act civil at all times, and help everyone through the process.
In my experience, an article about a service member killed, wounded, or otherwise closely connected to a war is often written by a relative, friend, or member of his or 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.
The most you can do is to help educate the newcomers
In my experience, most military biographies with a valid nomination for deletion are usually about
WikiProject Military History has its own metric specifically written for the biographies of military-related individuals: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People.
| “ | 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 a capital ship, a division 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, which you will know if you frequent
Note that these policies and guidelines are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, an individual may fail
Also note that the
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 to be done about it. I'm willing to consider a merge and/or redirect in the spirit of BIO1E, and a redirect might be 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). If the article is deleted and there are still disagreements, consider talking to the closing administrator or taking the decision to Deletion review.
One of the final takeaways is to never disrespect or insult anyone, especially the fallen. Any negative opinions about individuals should not be expressed on Wikipedia, whether in article space or in another venue. Advise the offended authors to think objectively about refuting arguments with evidence and policy. If you are wrong or something you were unaware of is brought to light, consider it carefully, and note if you have changed your position and withdrawn the nom or changed the vote as necessary. Don't try to bully or lecture anyone, and don't appeal to emotions. If you come to an impasse, recognize it and end a futile argument that is unlikely to be productive.
Nominating an article for deletion can be a trial for you, at times. Always assume good faith! I'm a U.S. Marine, and I hate nominating an article about my brothers and sisters in arms. The goal should be articles on Wikipedia that fall in line with established policy and guidelines, even if people don't always agree with them. Be flexible when you can: try to seek exceptions and sometimes ignore rules that don't make sense.
Ultimately, however, we have to do what's right for the project. If an article isn't right, then it isn't right, and has to go.