Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Wood (British army officer)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Users are free to insert information from here into the article on the battle if they so desire. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Wood (British army officer)

[edit]
David A. Wood (British army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Procedural nomination for 203.10.224.58 (talk · contribs). I have no opinion yet. MER-C 06:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN army officer, fails WP:BIO. Only reference quoted does not work. Could not find any outside articles on him. Davewild 07:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Officer is only notable for having died in combat. Does not meet the requirements.--Looper5920 09:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Goose Green was an important battle in an important recent conflict, the Falklands War. I've added a couple of references to the article, showing the important role that Wood played in a battle which is famous in Britain and pivotal in winning the Falklands War. The official RAF site history of the war, now quoted and referenced in the article, states that the death of Captain Wood and two of his colleagues led to the abandonment of the initial attack on a crucial Argentinian position. This led Colonel H. Jones to change his tactics and launch a different, flanking attack, in which he was himself killed. H Jones won the Victoria Cross for his action, which would not have happened in the way if did without the death of Captain Wood. After a fourteen hour battle over 1,000 Argentinian troops surrendered to the heavily outnumbered Parachute Regiment, who had lost 17 men including Captain Wood. This essentially won the War for Britain. How is this not notable when Wicket W. Warrick, a cartoon character from the Star Wars: Ewoks cartoon is? Davidwild could not have looked very far if he didn't find any relevant articles, it took me 10 seconds. He is not only notable for only having 'died in combat', as if that in itself is of no account. Nick mallory 09:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the importance of Goose Green is not in doubt. The lack of multiple non-trivial indpendent sources about this individual is the issue. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The RAF history of the battle of Goose Green is trivial is it? Have you read it? Wood's death led to H. Jones's action. His action led to victory at Goose Green and therefore in the Falklands War. His action, its significance and his death is not trivial. Is the South Atlantic Medal Association a trivial organisation? Nick mallory 10:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another good source here and the ones that Nick mallory has recently added to the article (especially the SAMA one) look good to me. Note that the SAMA link does appear to be a bit flaky - I had to refresh a few times.EliminatorJR Talk 10:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the above source said is that he died in combat. What was his importance? We have deleted articles on other service personnel with much more available info on the net then this guy. No where does it state that his actions led to the victory at Goose Green. No one is doubting the significance of Gooses Green, just the significance of this individual. Millions of people die in combat. They don't all deserve pages here.--Looper5920 11:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "As they moved forward, Captain Chris Dent, A Company's 2IC, Captain David Wood, the Battalion Adjutant, and Corporal David Hardiman were shot and killed, and the attempt was abandoned in the face of overwhelming firepower. The details of the next attack are confused, but it is certain that 'H' decided to lead by example, and issued orders at around 1000 hrs, now in broad daylight but covered by the smoke of the burning vegetation, for a flanking attack on the command trench on the hill above him." This is from the official RAF history of the battle and I don't see what better source you could have. Wood's death led to H. Jones leading the next attack himself, which led to a Victoria Cross and victory at Goose Green and therefore in the war. Woods did not die in in insignificant way, if such a thing is possible. Nick mallory 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and without wishing to invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, there are dozens of articles about people whose only notable action was to have died in combat, as a quick browse through a category like Category:Military_personnel_of_the_Vietnam_War will show. EliminatorJR Talk 12:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on this one. Having gone through the list...which I can see you failed to do. of the 86 names, 76 of them have recieved the Medal of Honor. Of the remaining 10...2 are there for there actions at My Lai, 1 recieved the Bronze Medal in boxing at the 1964 Olympics, 2 were awarded the Navy Cross, 1 was a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, 1 was a collegiate All-American for football, 1 was a professional football player, another has a shipped named after him (this one is questionable and could be redirected to the ship itself) and finally another is a recipient of the Air Force Cross and was the youngest pilot to shoot down a MIG in Vietnam. Of the 86 names only 2 are questionable and they are the last two mentioned and arguments could go either way for them. Please find a better list to use for comparison.--203.10.224.60 00:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better still is Category:Killed in action - covers the whole world and all of history. In case anyone is interested, as of 11/04/2007, we have 1662 articles on people Killed in Action. It would be interesting to see how many of them are notable for anything other than their wartime deeds and medals? I would be interested in separating out the young soldiers who died and got medals, from those who were already famous, or would be famous later, or who were high-ranking officers and generals (or even Roman emperors in one subcategory). You might indeed be able to successfully invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (before anyone objects, I know what it means) - or at least show that this issue desrves a wider debate than an article-by-article approach. Carcharoth 12:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 5-minute scan through that section reveals (to begin with) around 20 articles on US personnel KIA in Iraq that don't appear to have any notability other than that. Now I don't see that as a problem, compared to the amount of popular-culture-cruft that we let slip through (again, hopefully other editors will see that isn't an argument purely based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS).EliminatorJR Talk 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep - why is this even an issue? The article has been expanded and notability is not in dispute.139.48.81.98 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Jones' role at Goose Green was highly significant in the conflict and, debateably, controversial and was impacted by what happened to Wood.Scoop100 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as general consensus above, and particularly in light of this year being 25th anniversary of the conflict. Strongly suggest some stronger referencing, however. (I have Max Hastings award-winning book, might look into it this weekend). Emoscopes Talk 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC) In hindsight, after re-reviewing WP:BIO, I think a better solution would be to redirect to Battle of Goose Green, and mention that Wood was killed in this article, he is notable for this, but not the rather minor and trivial life story in the article. Emoscopes Talk 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established in the article.ALR 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefereably Keep, but if consencus not achieved, Merge and redirect to Battle of Goose Green. 89.213.8.161 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Battle of Goose Green and mention there in less detail. I'm sorry, but I go with the non-notability and not-a-memorial arguments. It needs stiff editing whatever happens: part of the article is very POV (typical, jovial self ... typical, courageous self, wise-cracking and encouraging others) and also is copyvio from 1039online.org. Tearlach 14:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There has been no explanation why he is more notable than the other two paras killed, and the logic that this was a "pivotal" moment in the battle would argue more for having an article on the Argentine machine gunner who cut them down. After all, it was his ability with his weapon that led to their deaths - all Wood did was walk into his bullets. However, it is hardly unusual for commanders to attempt flanking maneuvers after running into stout resistance. Wikipedia can't have articles on every soldier whose death inspired a flanking attempt, and if the Argentine position was strong, Jones might have been equally or more likely to be killed continuing with his original assault. Also, after reading the article on Goose Green, I'm not so sure that this was such a "pivotal" event in the battle anyway. Jones is killed around 10:30AM, the British attack "petered out," and then successfully resumed near noon, "inspired by [Jones'] sacrifice." However, if he hadn't been killed, the paras might have been "inspired by his personal leadership" to accomplish the same thing, or the advance might have continued without such a long pause, leading to victory sooner. Or the elite paras might have carried the day even without any special "inspiration." The case for notability is built on a very tenuous series of assumptions. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Redirect to battle page. Lead paragraph does not make any assertion of notability, you must dig for it towards the end of the article and even then it is insignificant. —Ocatecir Talk 16:07, 16 April 2007 (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/David_A._Wood_(British_army_officer)&oldid=1146560418"