Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medal "For services in the field of military cooperation"

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 no consensus. Despite the nominator's fairly extensive reasoning, there has not been a single other !vote to delete, and closing as such would be a textbook supervote. The argument that we have many articles on state awards with official sourcing does hold water, yet we are currently in a gray area notability wise. There is no SNG directly relating to awards (though there should be-- even the failed SNG only discusses it in the context of somebody winning it). It's not the place of an AFD closer to imagine a future SNG, and there does not seem to be a clear consensus regarding state awards (see here where many !voters suggested awards must meet GNG and here where many said the opposite). WIth no consensus to keep and keep !votes based on a presumption of notability that isn't necessarily agreed upon, we end up at no consensus. It's past time for an RFC on the topic. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medal "For services in the field of military cooperation"

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Medal "For services in the field of military cooperation" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE did not reveal WP:RS independent of the subject that addressed the topic directly and in detail beyond WP:ROUTINE mentions. WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Another option would be to create an article Military Awards of the Republic of Azerbaijan and merge all of the Azerbaijani award articles which do not meet criteria for their own individual article, into one article that could (probably) meet WP:GNG.   // Timothy :: talk  04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: State award of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It was approved by Law of Azerbaijan Republic No 328-IIQ dated May 17, 2002. Medal “For services in military cooperation”, state awards like this are clearly notable. Sources clearly prove its existence!--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Elshad Iman (Elşad İman), your opinion is that they are notable. Your opinion is not backed up by any independent sources that establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines. You must provide multiple WP:RS secondary sources that are independent of the subject (not a source associated with the government, military or their affiliates) that address the subject directly and in detail to establish notablity per WP:GNG. Just because it exists does not make it notable WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It does not appear you understand the notability guidelines. If I can help by answering any questions, please let me know.   // Timothy :: talk  05:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article about the medal is available in Azerbaijani and Russian languages. is available in other languages ​​as it is an important award.This article is part of the WikiProjects military history project. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. State awards like this are clearly notable and have been held to be notable at AfD in the past. Sources clearly prove its existence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The keep !votes are entirely based on feeling and opinion and have failed to support the keep !votes with any policies or guidelines, or reliable, independent secondary sources. The arguments that "It was approved by Law...", that it is available on other wikis, and other stuff exists are not valid reasons that demonstrate notability. Subjects are notable because they have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail WP:SIGCOV. The sources provided are not secondary sources independent of the subject. None of the keep !votes has provided (or even attempted to provide) sources that meet WP:RS criteria for notability. Its existence is not enough to prove WP:N, and it is not enough to merit inclusion. "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful" WP:WWIN.   // Timothy :: talk  11:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they're based on previous AfDs, consensus and, dare I say it, common sense that state awards should be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Necrothesp when you say "they're based on previous AfDs" thats WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When you say "common sense that..." thats an opinion based on WP:ILIKEIT. The best advice I can offer is please take some time to read WP:N, WP:WWIN, and WP:RS, Wikipedia works based on policies, guidelines, and sources not on personal opinions. I offer this suggestion with only goodwill, it will help you be a more productive member of the community and will make your time here more enjoyable. Also many experienced editors offer to mentor individuals, you might post something at the WP:TEAHOUSE about getting a mentor to help you with notability and reliable sources; I have several I go to with questions, so I know it helps from personal experience, I'm not suggesting anything I don't already do. Another idea is thinking about getting into Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School (this isn't new page patrol, but the principles cross over). If you can backup your positions with policies, guidelines and sources, you'll be much more effective here and it will help build a consensus instead of everyone just going back and forth. Best wishes and again I offer the suggestions in goodwill.   // Timothy :: talk  19:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than rise to being patronised, I will choose to WP:AGF and assume that you actually haven't bothered to read my userpage, that you don't actually know that I've been a "productive" editor here for more than sixteen years (whereas it looks like you've been here for less than a year), have written hundreds of articles and contributed to many thousands more, and also contributed to thousands of AfD and other discussions, many of which have set consensus on notability. I therefore really do know how Wikipedia works very well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I hadn't looked, and well all I can say is wow I'm shocked. It would have never occurred to me you were an admin. From your contributions, I honestly assumed you were completely inexperienced, which should cause you to reflect. My advice is still completely valid. I think you should seriously review the guidelines and policies and consider a mentor. Otherwise, maybe a tban should be considered by the community. What area do you contribute in as an admin?   // Timothy :: talk  22:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a WP:BADNAC per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 13.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep State award. Sources proves it. Believe this to be within WP:GNG. As per Necrothesp and Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) Cheers. --Erokhin (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Necrothesp and Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) Cheers. Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Based on the above overturn of the close, I strongly urge everyone to support their comments with policies, guidelines and sources, not invalid personal opinions and feelings. Since this close has been overturned and relisted, the eventual close will without doubt be evaluated based on !votes which are supported by policies and guidelines per WP:CLOSEAFD ("Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments."), not WP:ILIKEIT opinion votes without support from policies and guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  13:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added new sources to the article.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • TimothyBlue (and others) WP:OSE says ...countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged. ... While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. ... In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia. I think this is a case where an OSE argument is in fact a valid argumetn agaisnt deletion. DES (talk)

DESiegel Contribs 19:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: Hi DESiegel, I read what you wrote and genuinely appreciate your attempt to mediate this dispute. I have a four honest questions.
  1. "by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged" Do you believe I have referred them to WP:OSE and nothing else? I've mentioned OSE in one response and I also mentioned WP:N, WP:WWIN, and WP:RS with it. The rest of my comments I believe I have gone into detail about the policies and guidelines related to notability.
  2. "they may form part of a cogent argument"' If it may form part of a cogent argument, what is the rest of the argument? I can't identify anything other than, it exists and it's an award from the government, so it must be notable which is refuted by WP:WWIN "information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful."
  3. Do you believe the above essay is sufficient reason to set aside the notability guidelines cited and ignore the lack of independent, secondary sources that address the topic directly and in-depth? (I strongly suspect you don't believe this).
  4. If OSE is a valid argument, how should it be weighed against arguments based on WP:N?
I understand your point about OSE being taken into account, I can see it in cases where the subject is borderline notable, but not in cases where there are no independent, secondary sources that address the topic directly and in-depth to establish notability. Forgive my firmness on this, I'm honestly not being stubborn just to be difficult. I see AdDs being decided based on votes, feelings and opinions and not based on !votes and reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. I strongly believe this needs to change. If people feel that there should be an SNG guideline for evaluating award notability, they should propose such a guideline; its easy to do and the community can evaluate the issue. If this passes as Keep, I may propose such a guideline based on the reasoning here as a basis to support or reevaluate these articles. Until then we need to discuss based on existing guidelines and policies.   // Timothy :: talk  20:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are five points under WP:GNG
  • Point 1: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail"
  • Point 3: ""Sources"should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability"
  • Point 4: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"
Under WP:PRIMARYCARE it states "Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep." and under WP:PSTS it states "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability".
Six References:
  1. This is material copied from a government websites by a government contractor. It is not independent of the subject. It is not a secondary source; it is a copy from primary source.
  2. "Collection of Legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan" - This is a government publication. It is not a secondary source; It is a primary source. It is not independent of the subject.
  3. From the "Ministry Of Defense Of Azerbaijan" It is not a secondary source; it is a primary source. It is not independent of the subject.
  4. This is two sentences long. It states a few basic facts from the law. It does not discuss the subject indepth.
  5. As the heading declares, this is a copy of an Official Document from the government. It is not a secondary source and it is not independent of the subject.
  6. This is a government document. It is not a secondary source and it is not independent of the subject.
  // Timothy :: talk  19:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the GNG is a guideline (not a policy). At the head of the page, as for pretty much every guideline page, it says ... is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. TimothyBlue's comments above seem to treat the GNG as absolute and unchallangable. There are a number of categories of articles where secondary sources are not required to support an article. An article about a legally recognized popular place, as per WP:GEOLAND may be acepted base purely oin primary sources that show its existence. An article about a member of a national legislature is acceptable even if we have no more than primary official sources that establish that the person existed and was a member, as is the case for many historical legislators, particularly those prior to 1900. Such articles are accepted merely on official records of membership in a legislature, and perhaps official records of speeches made or votes cast. Articles about radio stations are accepted based purely on primary sources showing that they have been licensed and operated. Articles about secondary and tertiary schools are often accepted based just on primary sources showing that they existed, and perhaps were official government schools. In short, not all categories of articles require independent secondary sources. I am suggesting that medals and awards officially presented by a nation should be a similar category, that primary sources showing offici8al authorization of such awards and showing that they have, in fact, been presented, should be sufficient. I am arguing that a wide group of Wikipedia articles have been created and remained in existence on that basis, and that few of these have been challenged, and that in at least one case linked earlier in this discussion, such a challenge was made and rejected. There have, if I am not mistaken, been recent discussions at DRV suggesting that an AfD discussion may in good faith make a reasoned exception to the GNG, and that such local consensus will not be overturned by DRV. I am suggesting that a new SNG should be created to cover this case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, we should treat officially established awards and medals given out by a nation as being notable if reliable sources, including official sources, prove that they exist and are indeed official national awards. As per DESiegel Cheers.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closer: Since there has been some discussion from both sides of this debate (from this and other recent AfDs) about needing an SNG guideline specifically for Awards, I believe both sides would be very interested in how you evaluated the arguments and made the close decision, so it can help shape and inform any new SNG proposal. Thanks for your help.   // Timothy :: talk  13:22, 18 August 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Medal_%22For_services_in_the_field_of_military_cooperation%22&oldid=1142285968"