Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:57, 4 November 2007

David Pearce (Australian soldier)

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 Keep Subject passes WP:BIO he has Widespread coverage over time in the media he has also recieved significant recognized awards or honors. DPCU 03:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

David Pearce (Australian soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Precendent has established that soldiers killed in the line of duty do not meet the notability criteria unless they were notable for something besides the manner of their passing. I'm sure he was a good man, and is missed by his family, but Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• keep - It's really not common for an Australian to be killed in combat (3 have been killed in combat since the Vietnam War - this guy was the second). These three deaths are shaping public opinion in Australia. Even 3 weeks after his death, his name is coming up regularly in the papers (admittedly, that's in reference to the third death) Mark Chovain 12:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to an article/list on Australian soldiers killed in combat that can address the issue raised by Mark Chovain. Espresso Addict 17:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Re the Merge suggestion: I'd agree with that if the community feels that the soldier is not notable per WP:BIO. My point above is not to say that the subject is notable just because the three deaths are swaying public opinion, but to explain how I believe this case differs from others - To ignore the differences out of hand, would be a variation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
  This guy's death, and subsequently details of his life, were reported and discussed in the news in detail, and it's clear that the events will be discussed into the future. That doesn't just make the discussion about his death notable; it makes him notable, and appropriate for a biography article. This is not an article about how his death swayed public opinion (in which case a merge with other deaths would be appropriate), but rather a biography. If and when others write articles about how these deaths swayed public opinion (or whatever else comes up in the future), they'll be linking to this article (along with the other bios). At risk of sounding like I'm arguing that it's just WP:USEFUL, when others look up these names because they're reading them in the news, they'll find them here (That, incidentally, is how I came to write this article - I was after more information on the two recent Australian deaths). Mark Chovain 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now although a joint article or merger with an article on the Australian participation in Afghanistan may also be better. A six-month reappraisal might be appropriate. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep sufficiently notable person -- borderline WP:BLP1E recognising media coverage has been focused on Pearce and not the event. Other possible merger options would include Operation Slipper and 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment along with the suggested list though I'd expect such a list would get nominated under WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Gnangarra 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge after reconsideration I think the article content would be best presented within the context of Operation Slipper in section specifically on casualities. rethink is based on WP:NOTABILITY Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion. This not a reflection on the person only on the article within the context of an encyclopedia, out respect for the family of Pearce I intend to remove this comment if the afd isnt courtesy blanked. Gnangarra 01:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. Whilst I think that Australians would consider him notable, he doesn't meet the guidelines on notability under WP:BIO which is a different concept. There is no sustained news interest over a long period of time at this point of time. Of course, rules are always there to be bent. Assize 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • comment that sounds like WP:BIAS because the person is notable only to about 20 million Australians. WP:BIO says The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". to which you've already said Australians would consider him notable WP:Notability says A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject which has occured in this case. Yes there are questions as to what effect time will have but at this point he meets the requirement hence my weak keep. Gnangarra 03:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with your reasoning here. If he is notable in Australia, then he is notable. Mark Chovain 04:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BIAS is not a guideline or policy. If you use notable in the everyday sense, then yes, he is notable to Australians. However, in WP it is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Sustained media interest in him in the future will probably make him notable, but not now. Assize 11:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Assize I read your comment as being because he's notable in Australia that isnt sufficient reason for there to be an article, hence my comment about WP:BIAS. Can please explain what part of WP:N specifies where the subject of an article has to be notable before an article can be created/exist. Gnangarra 11:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Notability is not the concept the general public associates it with. It is not fame, importance or popularity. In Misplaced Pages land, notability means if the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hence my distinction, Australians would consider him notable, but in Misplaced Pages he is not. An Australian this week could tell you who he was. In three years, the answer will be different. Assize 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
          • comment - has the subject of this article not been the subject of multiple independent publications? Most soldiers are not; this one has been. Mark Chovain 05:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, but they are covering the same event. Ten newspapers covering the event doesn't make it more notable than an event that is only covered by one newspaper. WP:BLP1E applies. As an aside, if this was a vote, I would be voting to keep. Assize 10:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. Dying in combat does not make one notable or else there would be a list of articles a mile long from all conflicts, at all times. This article is recentism at its clearest. If Pearce's death becomes the centre of a major rethink about Australia's involvement in Afghanistan, I would reconsider, but at this stage that does not seem to have happened. I also have my doubts over the articles for Andrew Russell (Australian soldier) and Matthew Locke (Australian soldier) for similar reasons. Jacob Kovco meets notability requirements due to the circumstances of his death and the (ongoing) controversy. -- Mattinbgn\ 03:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Russell was the first since Vietnam first of anything is considered notable additionally there was controversy over compensation to his family. Locke had received a gallantry award which also had media coverage separate to his death as both of these also meet notablity. Gnangarra 03:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I am conscious that this discussion is about Pearce, not Locke, but to clarify, Locke's award was the Medal for Gallantry, the third level of military decoration for gallantry in Australia. I think there is room for debate to where a gallantry award makes a recipient notable. Given that so few of the new awards that replaced the imperial equivalents have been issued to date, perhaps all are notable but there is a long list of gallantry award winners from two world wars that will never see articles. With Russell, there is always someone first and being first since Vietnam does not to my mind seem significant enough. Controversy over compensation will always occur and is not unusual. I am not against all articles on non-commissioned soldiers in recent times; as well as Kovco, there is also Bill Apiata (who is still alive). In general, however, they are only notable for the manner of their death and this, to my mind is not enough to justify an article. -- Mattinbgn\ 04:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Your "list of articles" argument is a bit like WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm not suggesting we have an article for every soldier that has died in combat. This one is different to most because he is Australian, and has had more than 15 minutes of fame (which is all most soldiers get). It's possible I'm guilty of recentism, but Russell is still coming up in the news 5 years after his death. I see no reason why this one won't be similar. A memorial article is one where an article is created for fear of the person being forgotten; this one exists to provide information about a person for which the evidence suggests will be discussed in the media for some time to come. Mark Chovain 04:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, it is quite the opposite, the other stuff doesn't exist. :-), but I take your point. My point is that there is a good reason why it doesn't exist. As for being different because he is Australian, I think that falls foul of a systemic bias, where an article is included on a subject merely for the fact of his nationality. Without claiming to put the two on the same moral footing, does any Taliban who was killed that day deserve an article similar to Pearce's? Pearce was a soldier; his death, while tragic for his family and a loss for those who knew him, was in the ordinary course of his business and not unusual given his line of work. -- Mattinbgn\ 04:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • • comment' 3rd in 30+ years is kinda unusual, theres more truck drivers that die each year than there has been Australians in combat since 1974, that aside notability is based on significant coverage by indepeneent reliable sources which Peace has. If any Taliban had similar coverage then they would also rate an article, especially where the coverage is of the person not the event. Gnangarra 04:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • comment (WP:OTHERSTUFF covers both kinds of argument, by the way). Most soldiers do not get more than a passing mention in mainstream media, and people are unlikely to look to them up later. Note that WP:CSB says, "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or " Even in the US media, American soldiers generally get little more than a passing mention when they die. Including American's for the sake of including Americans would lead to systematic bias. I'm not arguing that "He's Australian, and I am (or the audience is) Australian, therefore he should have an article". I'm arguing that he has attracted more media coverage than most, and is likely to continue to do so into the future. Mark Chovain 04:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to List - Australia is lucky in that very few soldiers have been killed in action in the last few years. The media attention surrounding Pearce's specific death reflects that fact more than any notability, and it doesn't look like this will change Australia's stance in the War on terror (WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL). America has had thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no-one is campaigning for articles on every one of them. I believe the best option is to merge to a list of Afghanistan casualties. --Yeti Hunter 06:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the three deaths into one article. I think the maintainers of the articles can then expalin the effect of their deaths in Austraila there without the information getting lost via deletion. --Lenticel 06:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge, really I can't say it much better than Yeti Hunter (talk · contribs), whose opinion I agree with completely.--Isotope23 12:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into an article on Australian participation in Afghanistan. The person is not notable, would he be known but for his death and the fact he comes from a country whose soldiers have generally managed to evade death? Orderinchaos 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - 22:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Serveral strong references testify to his notability Kernel Saunters 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Multiple citations to nontrivial national news coverage. Whether he should have received such coverage or not isn't really our role to debate; the fact is that he has. However since there is relatively little information ever likely to be in the article, I wouldn't oppose merging all 3 soldiers into one article discussing Australian casualties in this war in general (and their effects on public opinion, etc.). --Delirium 06:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This was front page news in Australia for several days and his state funeral was attended by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition during the current election campaign. As a comment, if the final consensus is to merge then the article it should be merged into is Operation Slipper which covers all the Australian Defence Force's activities in Afghanistan since 2001. --Nick Dowling 09:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Nick Dowling and Mark Chovain. I'll note further that Notability has no expiration. If the subject is notable now, as independent sources (and the Australian PM!) would indicate, then the subject is notable. ZZ ~ Evidence 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge as a second preference. I do not believe keeping this article requires the bending of any rules because I believe it meets policy requirements. I concur that Misplaced Pages is not a memorial, however, just because the person's notability lies in the circumstances surrounding their death, does not inherently make the article a "memorial". WP:NOT#MEMORIAL says, "Misplaced Pages is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." This article reads to me like an encyclopedic biography, not one that is written to "honor departed friends and relatives." As noted by Mark, Trooper Pearce is only the second Australian soldier to be killed in combat since the Vietnam War and as such his death has had extraordinary media coverage in Australia. This might seem not notable to people in countries where they have had thousands of soldiers dies in wars since Vietnam and thousands in the War on Terror alone, however, I still feel that this article meets the notability guideline (albeit probably as a borderline case) and most importantly, the verifiability policy. Regardless of whether the article is kept or not, I ask the closing admin to please consider courtesy blanking this AFD out of consideration for this man's family and particularly his two young children who are old enough to accidentally happen upon this discussion. Sarah 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Though I believe that no disrespect was intended by any of the editors involved in this discussion, I second the request for Courtesy Blanking. ZZ ~ Evidence 14:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

comment Courtesy Blanking, I also support Sarah's suggestion Gnangarra 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree, ZZ, I don't think anyone has said anything inappropriate or intending to be disrespectful, at all. As I see it, everyone has commented appropriately and in good faith. I just feel our process would be very painful to his young children and other family members. Sarah 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing 100% with sarah here D.C.Rigate 08:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. While he may be one of the few Australians killed on active service in recent history, his notability should be established by what he achieved in life, not just by the fact of his death. Many of the above contributors appear to confuse news with notability. WWGB 09:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Please, don't confuse "coverage of the death of an Australian Soldier" with "coverage of David Pearce". What is notable, is that Australian personnel have died as a result of the deployment to Afghanastan - including, some who have died since returning to Australia seemingly as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder. We're WP:NOT a memorial. Garrie 02:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as has been pointed out before and this is copied from above WP:NOT#MEMORIAL says, "Misplaced Pages is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." This article reads to me like an encyclopedic biography, not one that is written to "honor departed friends and relatives." As noted by Mark, Trooper Pearce is only the second Australian soldier to be killed in combat since the Vietnam War and as such his death has had extraordinary media coverage in Australia. DPCU 11:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Mattinbgn. I can see this good mans death has a lot of press coverage, but I still don't think there is any explanaiton why he should be in an encyclopedia- it's all about people needing a face to the arguments of pro or contra war, and this is not the place for that. Greswik 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. All of the sources are news articles and in a year's time we won't be hearing it in the news. WP:BIO dictates that simply because a soldier has died an article doesn't need to be written for Misplaced Pages. Auroranorth (sign) 02:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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.