 |
This is an essayonnotability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest.
This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
| Military history guides Content · Notability · Style |
The Military history WikiProject's notability guide is intended to provide recommendations regarding the notability of topics within the scope of the project. Areas covered include events, people and units/formations. The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline, although the following is provided to give a general understanding of who, or what, is likely to meet the site-wide notability requirements for creation as a stand-alone article.
In general, an event is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. However, determining whether an event should have a stand-alone article (and, if so, what the title of that article should be), or should be mentioned in an existing article (and, if so, which article), can be a more nuanced decision. The evolving nature of warfare has meant that an event that might have been classified as a minor skirmish in the past might now be called a battle; at the same time, not every exchange of fire, IED strike, or bombing needs to be documented, either as a stand-alone topic or within a larger article.
Editorial discretion is required, particularly as media coverage is more prevalent than in the past, meaning that even minor incidents in current conflicts may receive significant press coverage. There are various options for writing about minor incidents; some will warrant stand-alone coverage (in an article titled "Battle of X", "Attack on X", or some other variation), while others can be sufficiently described in a section of an existing article on an overarching battle, campaign or conflict, and can be included there using a summary style of writing. Where an event does not have a specific name that has been accepted by reliable sources, it is more likely that it should be covered in an existing article about a higher-level operation, rather than in a stand-alone article.
In cases where the participating military units have their own articles, it may be appropriate to include mention of a minor incident there, albeit in a manner that does not breach the rules on undue weight.
The notability guidance previously provided by the WP:SOLDIER essay has been deprecated as a result of this discussion. It is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people, and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project. Deletion discussions regarding biographical articles should refer to WP:BIO.
As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverageinmultiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion:
As a general rule, sub-units that exist below the level of those formations or units listed above—such as sections, platoons, troops, batteries, companies, and flights—are not intrinsically notable. Such information as can be suitably sourced should normally be included, with appropriate focus, in an article about a notable parent formation.[3] Rarely, some sub-units will meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements. These however will be exceptional cases, such as E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), which is notable because it was the subject of a best-selling and detailed book and TV miniseries.
The requirement for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject" can be met through published books, journal articles, newspaper articles, and/or reputable websites that discuss in depth the units and their involvement in significant military operations. It does not include websites, newsletters and webcasts published by a unit itself about itself, its actions or personnel, or other non-independent agencies (such as a parent formation).
While usually acceptable as sources for content, material published by armed forces, individual branches, or historical divisions (such as the USN's Naval History & Heritage CommandorUnited States Army Center of Military History) should generally not be used as the only evidence towards a subject's notability or determining whether it should have a stand-alone article. Exceptions to this rule may be possible where it can be established that these works are reliable per the established guidelines and provide significant coverage of the subject.
Significant coverage does not equate to multiple passing mentions in otherwise suitable sources; however, once notability has been otherwise established, it is acceptable to use such sources in constructing an article, per relevant guidelines on reliable sources. Additionally, while secondary sources should be used to establish notability, primary sources can also be consulted once notability has been established, so long as they are used in accordance with the restrictions set out in the rules on primary sources.
|
Wikipedia key policies and guidelines (?)
| |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
| Content (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Conduct (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Deletion (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Enforcement (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Editing (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Project content (?) |
| ||||||||||
| WMF (?) |
| ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
