Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Time

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Although I sympathise with some of those arguing for keep,the fact is that Wikipedia has fairly specific guidelines for what to includearticles on: consensus among those who based their arguments on such guidelines were that they are not met in this case (and that 'last squad to be completely killed'does not in itself confer notabilty). I'm happy to userfy this for work into one of the other articles suggested below; contact me on my talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Time

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not proud of this nom, but I don't think that this article meets the notability requirements, as well as vioalting WP:NOTMEMORIAL (the main source, or rather only source, is memorial enough). There is only one source regarding the incident in question, and it's ~~about as close to~~ hardly third-party; the remainder are merely short bios and I am unable to find any other references. There were thousands upon thousands of skirmishes and firefights in the Vietnam War, and I don't see what makes this one notable above the rest or enough for an article. None of the six Marines seem to meet the notability requirements on thier own, either. There is also a WP:COI issue: The author claims to be a relative of one of the six Marines killed. At best, it could be merged into 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appreciate Bahamut0013 problem with nomination but (WP:DUCK) it looks just like a memorial page. No indication that this action was any more notable then any other deaths in Vietnam, doesnt appear to be notable enough to be mentioned at 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient information to justify a full article for the six marines; the page would do better merged into the unit the served with. As a side not here, I note for the record that the article article Herbert Lang resided at the page Flight Time until the it was moved to Herbert "Flight Time" Lang to make way for this newer article. Closing admins may wish to consider returning Herbert to his original location if the afd closes as delete. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lets give the editor time to clean it up.. lets tell him our concerns ..this deleting of articles without proper time for corrections is not proper and is very inconsiderate to all this new editors that have taken the time to make them!!..it reads like a momorial then lets tell him that so he can fix it..no way a new editor will ever know all the guidelines (over 2000 pages of them)...Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The author surely thought it was ready after working on it in his sandbox for a few days and then requesting for it to be moved to mainspace. Having been around since July, I think he should have enough of a grasp on our policies and guidelines to be expected to understand one of the most important: Notability. And in any case, that's not something time or more editing can fix. He really can't do anything to make the event or people more notable. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is history "the LAST full recon team to be totaly wiped out all at once "the last team in the whole war" if thats not historicl the what is ? Mlpearc (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book "Never Without Heroes" by Lawerencw C Vetter Mlpearc (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it's notable that this was the "last full team from the 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion of six men killed in action during the Vietnam War". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These Marines and Corpsman paid the ultimate price for freedom, are we so in need of server space to forget them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.93.98 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a memorial! This is a part of USA history. the vietnam war was a signaficate part of USA history, this article is about a Whole Team of recon marines to die, the team died which wiped out the 3rd recon. Thank you fellow americans and all the people/teams who gave thier lives for us, if it was'nt for them, do you think we would be able do "wiki" and have the freedom we have?! thank you connie keever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.104.45 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((Foot note)) the book "Never Without Heroes" by Lawrence C. Vetter Jr. ISBN#0-8041-0807-2 Chapter 12 page 292 paragraph 3 states "Flight Time- Marines Barnitz, Buck,O'Conner, Pearcy, Skaggs, and Wellman-was the last team to be totally lost by the battalion"Mlpearc (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of independent in-depth references means that this unit doesn't meet WP:ORG. Most of the above keep comments seem to be variants of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:NOHARM and don't really address the reason why this article has been nominated for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the existing content, is there a reason why the last full team to be killed in Vietnam would not be significant? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being the last full Recon team to be killed is pretty arbitrary. They were not the last Marines from the battalion to be killed in Vietnam, nor were they the last Recon Marines to be killed in that war (even if they were, again, that's pretty arbitrary; the distinction between being interesting and notable comes into play here). The fact that an etire team was wiped out at once doesn't really make it more notabile in a war like Vietnam where such things were almost commonplace. And of course, the closing admin should note the WP:SPA IP and the WP:ILIKEIT keeps. And I really don't appreciate the incredibly condescending comment left by Mlpearc and teh rude one by user:Shortrounf68 on my talk page. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORG insufficient 3rd party coverage found to pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(foot note) see this page[[1]] subsection 10"flight time" Mlpearc (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I saw the aforementioned discussion prior to making my !vote one declassified document does not wp:notability make. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the big problem is the age of most people commenting here (i cant ask age) but anyone here even alive to see this news story ???..I think there just not old enough to remember this....I have contacted the 3 main news organizations in the USA to get copies of the original TV report on this indecent. From what i can find it was headline new for that week...Buzzzsherman ([[User talk:|talk]]) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really relevant to the notability of the article at all. WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (events) demonstrate that news coverage doesn't necessarily equate to notability either: simply because the news covered it doesn't mean it rates an article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a sad event for the families of the men killed but it lacks sources that would demonstate notability beyond their personal circles (both military and familial). It the event is a part of the Battalion lore, then perhaps it belongs there, but it is not sufficient in significance for its own article. Bielle (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Buzzzsherman: if we do not know of the event because of our age (and that would certainly not be true in my case) it could be because, along with many, many events in every country across the world, it was important in the US for a week WP:Recentism, and not more. Bielle (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point!! as you can tell this is a heated debate with emotions running high...just i cant believe that we are even talking about deleting this..Wiki has more then enough space and should include all human knowledge and history!!! ...I have decided that i am going to be re-do this article..when i get more info on the matter..I have bought the book ..New york times has a periodical from the news report that i am getting a copy of. I will be redoing the article with the main back drop being that after this indecent platoon deployment changed for the rest of the war!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU SIR.Mlpearc (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Buzzzsherman again: redoing the article is fine if you have sources that make it a notable event. However, stating "I will be redoing the article with the main back drop being that after this indecent platoon deployment changed for the rest of the war," is not enough unless there is evidence -not just your view- that links these deaths causally (rather than just temporally) with altered platoon deployment tactics. You may want to look at Post hoc ergo propter hoc or even Correlation does not imply causation. Bielle (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know ...i have been here long time..made many articles my latest one... i don't normally get involved in this type of thing..in fact this is my second Vote on this type of thing...I offer my knowledge on the wiki help page and from that i have noticed that in the past few months new editors keep getting there work deleted (I mean like 60percent) so i decided i will help this people with copy edits.. adding refs ..Votes...and now looks like making the dame article my self so it will pass this USER made polices. Anyways i hope no one takes anything personal here i am just upset that new editors do not get the help they once did..in fact i would say the old wiki users don't even what new users here...making 2000 polices that would take an editor a year to read is not helping!!..how is it possible tell me!!!...Mlpearc has been here helping editing for some time..he takes a leap and makes his first article and BANG 5 tags hit it in 24hrs including Speedy delete when hes still in the process of adding refs ..come on!! made someone could tell him the problem or even better yet actually help improve the article ..not just tag it and move to tag the next 50 article that look a bit off!!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Now there are two sources, but I'm still not convinced that it proves notability. Like I said before, I don't think the notability issue is something that can be overcome with more editing or time, it's a fundamental issue with the topic not being right for a Wikipedia article. We all were newbies and most of us have had some type of trial by fire at some time, but most of us have learned from it and improved our editing.

Given the number of anons and SPAs that have popped up to this discussion and to harass me on my talk page, I think this was unhelpfully posted on some kind of message board somehwere. If you have attempted to meddle in this way, please admit it. If you have come here to harass me for my listing this, I recommend you go do something more constructive. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per not a memorial, not news and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Note that the 'sources' are about a 'memorial', 'remembering' and 'recollections'. This event was significant to the families, but is not a significant event in the war. The 'last' aspect is mere trivia. People die in wars, by the millions; most are quite ordinary and are soon forgotten. Such things are not appropriate here. Cover the wars, their causes, the battles, mistakes, and lessons. Jack Merridew 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then what Heros do we delete that are already here ?Mlpearc (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we start with Audie Murphy Mlpearc (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Audie Murphy seems notable, as do Erwin Rommel and Sergeant York. It's poor form to badger people with pointy suggestions. Jack Merridew 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Also adds our systematic bias. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jack Merridew. Reyk _YO! 01:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per not a memorial. The article, as it currently stands, does not show any notability other than these men died in Vietnam. While their deaths were tragic and I am sure they acted honorably and heroic until the end it still does not pass the reasonable man test in "my opinion."--Looper5920 (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Although five editors have argued above for "keep" not one of them has actually argued that there is significant coverage. Instead we get "if thats not historicl the what is", "These Marines and Corpsman paid the ultimate price for freedom, are we so in need of server space to forget them", "Wiki has more then enough space and should include all human knowledge and history", and so on. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence of the notability of this subject. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rather than rush simply to dispose of the hard work of yet another honourably committed Wikipedia editor, mightn't it be appropriate to suggest alternative, more constructive solutions? These deaths were significant, and the work that has been done on the article is significant. How about working up an article on Hill 471, for example, or on the issue of body recovery in Vietnam and elsewhere? The voices of rigour bellowing "no notability" fail to notice their former fellow-enthusiasts slipping quietly away to more rewarding activity elsewhere. Opbeith (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already have voiced an alternative suggestion. While I would applaud the idea of creating a new article regading body recovery/graves registration (perhaps Prisoner of War and Missing in Action Affairs?), I don't think it would help this one. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: So how about moving it to userspace in the meantime? – ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Opbeith and ukexpat I would be glad to move it "back" to my user space and see where we can go with it. This gladens my heart, because I really do love Wikipedia. I know there were some things thrown back and forth, Please let me know whats decided ! Mlpearc (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to userspace. Kittybrewster ☎ 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.