Geavaheaddji:Eino81/Important things to me

George Miok

(láhtengillii) – (View logMálle:• Málle:Plainlink)

(Málle:Findsources)

• Delete. This nomination will be seen as callous and insensitive by some editors, but I believe it is appropriate. All Canadian military deaths in Afghanistan, including Sgt Miok, are reported appropriately at Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan. Sgt Miok's life prior to his untimely death was not exceptional, and he does not meet WP notability requirements. In particular, the guidelines WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS apply here. WWGB (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Michelle Lang article was created consequent to the same SINGLE event hitting the NEWS and while I acknowledge WP:WAX, when you are recommending delete here and supporting keep for the Lang article there is a prima facie inconsistency in your logic that suggests your delete recommendation requires further explanation, as NellieBly, below, has done. Whether a person's life is "exceptional" or not is a subjective judgment that is not for us to make. What matters is the objective standard of secondary sources and here the sheer volume of sources is relatively substantial. I understand Lang was a journalist and Miok a teacher but I fail to understand the relevance of profession, while acknowledging that a journalist will get more coverage because acquaintances of the journalist are more likely to be closer to a microphone as they are journalists themselves. What is the substantive difference in notability here when in the Edmonton media market coverage of the teacher/soldier exceeds that of the journalist?Bdell555 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, comparisons are waxy, but since you raised the comparison:

1. Michelle Lang was the first Canadian journalist killed in the war in Afghanistan (WP:Significance).
2. The first Canadian soldiers killed in the war in Afghanistan have their own article.
3. George Miok was the 135th Canadian soldier killed in the war in Afghanistan.
4. Michelle Lang won a 2009 National Newspaper Award [1] (WP:ANYBIO)

WWGB (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that his notability is based only on the event of his death, which does not make him independently notable enough. This differs from Michelle Lang, who as a National Newspaper Award winner passed WP:BIO even before she was killed. --NellieBly (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't agree the selection, which occurs in the English Wikipedia. There are other articles, which contains similar subject (e.g. only a death). There are much worst articles here. The event is too near, the article is growing every day. --Eino81 (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has only been in place for 2 days. There are many other articles in Wikipedia about events/people which may or may not pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. I would advise against any hasty deletion of this article until such a time as has been proven that no further information about the person is forthcoming. --MacTire02 (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. He got as much coverage as Michelle Lang who was killed with him (I doubt Lang would have had an article about her if she didn't die), also, Wikipedia doesn't seem to delete other articles whose subject is notable only because of his death. – Alensha ^talk 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with MacTire02 the article has not been her long we should wait and see if more information will become available if not then it should be deleted. Kyle1278 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. There will be countless similar obituaries if this is kept. --Jisis (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or at least Merge with 41 CER as that unit's only KIA in its history. See my observations at Talk:George_Miok. This article is not written like or intended to be an obituary, tribute, or memorial. It is a go-to resource for "George Miok" which if you enter into news.google.ca produces more than 1600 hits. I suggest setting a threshold of 2500 by the end of the month for keep or delete as I believe that will be easily surpassed. Wikipedia is just here to provide information. There will not be "countless similar obituaries" when there is sustained and continuing media coverage at this level. How an article with 14 footnotes ended up as a priority for delete is a head scratcher; the overwhelming majority of humanity will not have their names appear in national media outlets on different continents. As for what makes him more notable than other Canadian Forces casualties, although I personally don't have any objections to an article for every one (there are less than 200, far from countless) I believe this one is rare in that a foreign country sees him as a native son. It was a Hungarian, after all, with no personal connection to this Canadian citizen, who created the bulk of this article after being alerted to the individual by Hungarian sources. Most bios in need of deletion are created by persons from the deceased's locality based on local sources only, if any sources at all.Bdell555 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you'll find that many more than 200 Canadians have been killed in action! Why should those killed in the current wars be any more notable than those killed in the two world wars? The difference is that they were killed in an era of mass communication, not that they did anything more notable (or that casualties of previous wars did anything less notable). In addition, if you have an article for every Canadian casualty then you are presumably advocating an article for every casualty of every nationality killed in every war. And if not, why not? Are Canadians a special case? And what about everyone else who has died of every cause. Are war casualties a special case? Why? Is it just people who died doing their jobs? There are many millions of them too. Does someone who died, say, building a railway or a road to improve everyone's lives have any less right to be commemorated than someone who was killed in a war? Are people born abroad more important than people born in the country they served? Many of those killed in the American Civil War weren't born in America. Does that mean they should all have articles? Verifiability does not equate to notability, despite the increasing numbers of editors who seem to think that it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with MacTire02, too hasty to delete at this stage, may possibly warrant merging with another article in the future.--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. He seems to have a fairly long and distinguished career. Although worst comes to worst, as others have suggested this article could always be merged into a broader one, perhaps about Canadian military deaths in the Afghanistan campaign.--MTLskyline (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This NCO only seems to be notable for having been killed in action. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Many soldiers killed in action have had distinguished careers - the millions killed in the two world wars for example. We simply cannot have articles on every one of them. Precedent has generally held that such people are not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete While any serviceman is admirable and any serviceman killed in action is worthy of a memorial, long-established policy that has been repeatedly backed up by consensus clearly states that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Sgt. Miok is a hero, but clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability. I recommend that the author of the article continue his (her?) effort to commemorate this young man's sacrifice in other mediums than Wikipedia. Rapier1 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What elements of the article do you consider memorial-like as opposed to encyclopedic in tone? If this article is, in fact, a memorial I entirely agree but that question shouldn't be begged. I see the article simply as information and reckon there is plenty of room on Wiki's servers for a clean and concise article with 15 or more footnotes from a range of WP:RS. If the consensus is for delete, there should be a full discussion, and that means people calling for deleting answering the questions that are being put to them.Bdell555 (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and individuals having articles on them are limited to notability. This man does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Please review WP:N. This will show you what is required for article inclusion. Rapier1 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:N as my user history would suggest Rapier1, thank you. I call attention to the following

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable and independent of the subject. This article has 15 citations to published, independent, reliable secondary source material.

From WP:BLP1E: The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. There ought to be some objective standard here, and I suggest 1000 hits on news.google or more at a point during the 30 days subsequent to article creation. If people think the standard should be 10 000, fine, reasonable people can certain hold to such a view, but just stating "not notable" does not advance the discussion.Bdell555 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete With all due respect, you have proven that the existance of this man is verifiable, nothing there states how he is notable. There is a difference between the two. Being a war casuality does not confer notability by Wikipedia standards. Again, with respect, and I apologize for not including this link in my previous message, when dealing with persons (living or dead) you want to be sure to look at WP:BIO. I assumed that you would go to the section on the notability of people from the link on WP:N and that was my mistake. Finally, see WP:MILPEOPLE for criteria on military personnal. As you can see, this is a topic that has been debated many times. Rapier1 (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)