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. No compelling arguments have been presented to refute the assertion that this article fails our standards for the notability of individuals covered for only a single event. Keep arguments are almost universally based either on the fact that the article is new, or on the fact that Michelle Lang is similarly notable. The newness of the article is irrelevant if nobody can demonstrate notability even in the face of AfD, and the assertion that Michelle Lang is worth comparing have been refuted by their actually different notability situations. Ultimately, the strength of arguments here is strongly in favour of deletion. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this individual has not had their notability demonstrated for any reason other than the single event of their death. ~ mazca ^talk 00:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Miok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Comment. In response to the three above comments, the basis that other stuff does/does not exist is not a proper reason to advocate keep or delete. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
  • 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 with parents born abroad more important than people with parents born in the country they served? Many of those killed in the American Civil War weren't born in America and even more were born in America to foreign-born parents. 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)[reply]

Living persons are massively over-represented on Wikipedia relative to the number of humans that have lived and died throughout humanity's existence. The reason for that is because, for example, medieval people considered medieval events more notable and we, as contemporary people, consider contemporary events more notable. The next generation might well find this article non-notable in their world and accordingly delete it but that is for them to decide. But the real issue here is whether this article should not exist just because other stuff does not exist. See other stuff does/does not exist. When someone wants to create an article about an American Civil War soldier that can be dealt with when that time comes. I might add that Wiki policies do not agree with you that casualties of previous wars are equally notable without reference to contemporary coverage because notability is defined by reference to "how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." If there is no coverage, the subject is not notable. That does not mean the sources got it right with their level of coverage, but rather that Wikipedia follows an objective standard: if the media considers someone notable, that person is notable. We are not to decide notablity apart from reference to reliable sources. As for a "right to commemorate" etc it is not Wikipedia's job to "commemorate" anyone. That may be inconsist with WP:NPOV and in any case Wikipedia is not a memorial. The issue here is whether to provide information about this subject or not.Bdell555 (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is simply "is this person notable?" The answer is "no he isn't". He did nothing more significant than any other person who has died. He is significant merely because he died in battle. So did many other people. If they are not significant enough for an article on Wikipedia (and I include all the Iraqis and Afghans as well as western troops) then neither is he. The fact he has had obituaries written on a number of websites is utterly irrelevant, whether or not they are in more than one country. If an obituary was written in a national newspaper that would be significant, as it would suggest he was considered notable by the national media. Notability is about what he did and what he did does not make him notable. The incident is which he died may be notable, but he as a person is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

With all due respect, I was not quoting WP:V policy. I was quoting from the policy that applies to the issue of notability in general AND policy applicable to the notability of persons in particular. WP:MILPEOPLE unfortunately does not resolve this case one way or the other.Bdell555 (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As mentioned earlier, the coverage is due to a single (and fairly common) event. Because there's nothing particularly unusual or historical about this event, it's safe to assume that the coverage is typical of that given to most war casualties: widely reported at the time, but won't persist, so it fails the criteria at WP:BLP1E. I can't honestly see individual deaths like this appearing in sources six months down the line, so I don't go for the "too early" arguments. Holly25 (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I PROD-tagged this and my reasoning here will be the same; WP:BLP1E (this individual is known for only one event), and Wikipedia is not a memorial. When considering questions of notability such as this, I find it useful to ask myself the question, "What has this person actively done?", because, to my mind, notability accrues to people who do things that make them notable. In this case there doesn't seem to me to be any action which distinguishes this individual from his peers; something happened to him but not because of him. Occasionally victims of crime meet the general notability guideline but I don't see that here. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. While this person is admirable, and his ultimate sacrifice to his country should be honoured, in all reality this page is acting as a memoral and the subject has no true claim to inclusion per Wikipedia's guidelines. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/partial merge with 41 CER. George Miok, while undoubtedly a great person, does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for military people. However, this could deserve mention on the aforementioned page. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking a position on whether to redirect or partially merge, one cannot categorically say that the subject "does not meet the ... WP:MILPEOPLE notability guideline" because the guideline says that to categorically not meet the guideline the person would be someone "who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents". That's not the case here. While I would grant that it is also the case that none of the enumerated conditions are satisfied, there is no reason to believe that that list is exhaustive. If it were exhaustive why would there be a declaration at the end about what would categorically not be notable? Re the general notability guideline, perhaps you could be more specific and quote from the policy what you believe is not satisfied.Bdell555 (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's back-to-front: those guidelines say that someone only traceable through such sources is not notable; it doesn't say that someone not notable has to be only traceable through such sources. That's like saying, "Whales are not fish; therefore, anything that's not a fish must be a whale." Holly25 (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim that he was notable based on WP:MILPEOPLE. It is rather the case that you claimed he was not notable based on those guidelines and the guidelines do not support your contention since at the one point they talk about what is not notable those conditions do not apply here. You are the one drawing the "therefore", not me, in other words. What argues for the subject's notability here is not WP:MILPEOPLE, which is inconclusive, but WP:GNG, with WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:BLP1E not contradicting a notability finding based on WP:GNG. One could reasonably argue that WP:BLP1E provides additional support for notability as it states that "[t]he significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources," something that is well established here.Bdell555 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are your exact words: the guideline says that to categorically not meet the guideline the person would be someone "who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents" To paraphrase, you're saying that the guideline requires that a person only be mentioned in such sources in order for them to be non-notable.

The guidelines don't say that; they say that being traceable only through such sources is sufficient to show non-notability, but not that it is required. Thus, your assertion that "one cannot categorically say (he fails those guidelines)" because "that's not the case here" is based on a fallacy, and that's all my comment was pointing out.

Note that the parent "Redirect/Merge" isn't mine; my own "Delete" further up was based upon WP:GNG (arguing that the coverage was fleeting and not the kind of substantial, persistent sources that establish notability) because it seemed that others have addressed the WP:MILPEOPLE arguments. Holly25 (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The article is well sourced and suitable in length for its subject. The person's death received international press coverage due to the notability of his Hungarian background. If you presume that this article is notable enough for the Hungarian wikipedium, which I'm certain that it should be, then it stands to reason that the corresponding English article should exist. Besides, WP:DONTBEHASTY; there's no reason to do a deletion on notability grounds less than a week after a person's page has been created, since it's clear that the English language editors haven't consulted all available international sources yet. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles are kept according to whether they satisfy the notability guidelines. The fact that an article exists in another language is irrelevant in a deletion discussion: it just means that someone has created an article in that language and it hasn't been nominated for deletion yet. As to international sources, there's no reason to think they'd say anything significantly different to English-language ones. They're going to be reporting the same set of facts as the sources we already have. Holly25 (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungarian sources will report "the same set of facts"? And how do you know that? I see a Hungarian source quotes Hungary's diplomatic representative in Edmonton with respect to the article subject. You've come across that in the English language sources as well? What bothers me about this discussion is that it seems there are no shortage of opinions but very little evidence supporting those opinions.Bdell555 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know that for certain, but I would assume that if they gave a radically different picture of things to the extent that notability was established, those sources would be provided in the course of this discussion. They haven't, so I'm assuming they're not materially different. Holly25 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial for dead soldiers. This guy didn't have notability with Wikipedia's measures. There is nothing special about him and also no media coverage. Millions of soldiers have died in military conflicts. An encyclopedia is not a place to build articles for all of them.--Professional Assassin (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Ultimately fails non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, and thus fails WP:GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - despite being a well written and well sourced article, the subject fails WP:GNG as the biography of a person famous for a non-notable event, who is not otherwise notable. As the OP said, don't take this review as harsh or insensitive, my personal view is that Mr. Miok and all of the others that have been killed in action are heroes. However, a soldier killed in a military conflict is not notable, and the ongoing roadside bombings in Afghanistan are not independently notable. The sheer number of ghits is irrelevant: we are not reporting the news here, and he has not done anything that we would consider notable other than being killed alongside the first Canadian reporter to be killed in this conflict, and that does not make him notable beyond WP:BIO1E. While I applaud the work of the editors on this article, and recognize the sensitivity of the subject matter, Wikipedia is not a web host and not an indiscriminate collection of information. As other commenters here have suggested, I also suggest that this article should be moved to an appropriate web server as a memorial (which these soldiers rightfully deserve). Ivanvector (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOT a memorial site. One time event notability WP:BLP1E Annette46 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 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.