Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The History of Submarine Squadron Four, US Navy

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 merge to Submarine Squadron 4. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Submarine Squadron Four, US Navy[edit]

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

This article is spun off from Submarine Squadron 4. I removed most of the info on this page from the SUBRON4 page as I don't believe that the info was relevant or notable. I don't see how a list of CAPT CO's can be important to the history. My suggestion is to move some of the info back to the SUBRON4 page. The editor of the SUBRON4 page is closely linked to SUBRON4 and took umbrage at my editing the page. Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gbawden, what you removed was mostly, a list of submarines that had served with the squadron - core data for a squadron history - and lists of commanding officers - things that are routinely included in military unit articles. All of this is notable (can be verified in multiple sources) and unquestionably relevant. I disagree with your edit strongly, though the material needs to be refactored a bit, and the non-Subron 4 details of other subs and tenders removed, plus some information which is already at the linked articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Submarine Squadron 4, without leaving redirect. No call for two articles: I would expect a history of the squadron in the main article. I see no reason not to include the information on the various commanding officers.TheLongTone (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To all Concerned. I did take umbrage. I see this as a solution. As Gbawden alluded, I am close to SUBRON4 as I was a member of that squadron from 1982-1986 and 1990-1992. Delete my HISTORY page and leave the information on the talk page as you see fit. I will move all of the years of research and documentation from discussions with former SUBRON4 Commanders and Squadron Members to a Facebook Group page. I can see that Wikipedia is not really the conducive vehicle that I once thought for historical data on military units. You really can't see how an list of SUBRON4 Commanders is relevant to the history of the Squadron? That was all I needed to know to make a decision. Sorry to have wasted the last three years pouring over squadron documentation only to have it dismissed as "irrelevant". Have a good day.

Esquire122 (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)ET2 Watkins, SUBRON4[reply]

Dont throw your toys out of the pram. You seem to lack a basic understanding of how Wikipedia works: once an article has been created, anybody has a right to edit it. I see that one edit you reverted simply filled out a bare reference: stupid. I agree with you about the content, but you do not make any case for there being two articles on the same topic.TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Submarine Squadron 4. Most of the info is notable, but it needs to presented in a better way and not in a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Submarine Squadron 4. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a repository for non-notable details of every military unit. Commanders who are notable (by the WP definition of notability) might be worth mentioning, commanders who filled a billet for a few years probably are not. Remember, none of us own an article. If it is feared the information may be lost and useful to something other than Wikipedia, userfy the info until it can be transferred elsewhere. EricSerge (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Submarine Squadron 4 without loss of information. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As several of you have pointed out, users can edit/delete at will and I do fear that some information may be lost. As Eric noted, historical data may not be appropriate for WP. I have the information in a WORD file and published, so you may do what you reach a concensus to do without further objection from me. Longtone, please accept my apology if I appeared to be "throwing a tantrum". Years of chasing leads, pouring over archive documents, and contacting former SUBRON4 Commanders on the phone has allowed me to collect to the most extensive historical archive on SUBRON4 outside of the US Navy Archives in DC. It also led me to be over-protective of all the work myself and some others have done collecting information. I think some of you are right in retrospect, in the commentary that WP is not the place for historical information, since what is "notable" for someone who was a member of SUBRON4 isn't notable for others who where never there. Point taken. Esquire122 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for all your hard work on researching SUBRON 4, Esquire122. Lists of commanding officers are routinely placed in articles and there is no reason why this information should be deleted. Please do not be deterred from continuing to add material to wikipedia. The only thing I have to warn you about is that material has to be previously published; we do not allow WP:Original Research. That means original research - suuch as yours may include - may have to be published elsewhere before being added to Wikipedia. Also, yes people will reformat your information, but unfortunately, that does happen. Please feel free to contact me directly should you feel in need of future advice. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the parent article. Although the discussion of what content should or not should not be in the article is not strictly the purview of AFD, I will state that a list of commanders in an article on a military unit is a perfectly sensible thing to have. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the parent article. Also, I am concerned about OR and what appears to be some OWN behavior. Intothat darkness 15:21, 27 June 2014 (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.