Talk:274th Forward Surgical Team (Airborne)/Talk Page deletion discussion

You deleted over half of my references. Thanks. That's 90 minutes I'll never get back.

You've marked this page for deletion.

Can you explain to me how the sister unit of this this page, the 541st FST (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/541st_FST) isn't marked for deletion, considering that the first 7 references they list are not verifiable?

ArmyOrtho (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No web sites have been deleted from the Internet; if you don't have the links saved in your personal bookmarks file, you can still see previous versions of this article by clicking the 'history' tab. If you think you've found an article which doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Make sure you clearly explain why it doesn't meet the guidelines. You might find these guidelines for determining whether a military unit is notable or not helpful. Don't worry; the article hasn't been deleted yet, and you are welcome to make a comment at the deletion discussion page explaining why this particular unit does meet the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How are we doing on notability? ArmyOrtho (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:MILUNIT? Most units of this size wouldn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria; I can't find a place in the article that explains why this one is of unusual significance. I looked at the CNN, BBC, and FOX articles you added, but this unit is not the main subject of any of them, as far as I could tell. Have you read the conflict of interest guidelines? It can be frustrating and difficult to objectively edit an article when one is personally involved with the subject; we all try to avoid doing so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You do yourself no favor in bolstering the unit's notability when you add five references ([1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]) all of which cover the exact same incident, and none of which mention the 274th by name. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

All very good points and completely understood. And, I agree 100% that a company sized element that deploys with a higher headquarters would roll up under their page. However, Forward Surgical Teams do not deploy with their higher units, they deploy and operate independently without the assistance of their higher headquarters. As the only medical unit on FOB Fenty during the attack of 2 December 2012, the 274th received all the casualties, while under heavy attack, and were singled out for commendation in doing so.

Although the 28th Combat Support Hospital is listed as its higher echelon (and has it's own page), the subordinate units are much more active and operate independently. I have difficulty seeing how the 28th CSH warrants a page, but the much busier and more often deployed direct reporting units don't (with the exception of the 541st FST which has had a page for almost 2 years now without being deleted). ArmyOrtho (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't helpful to compare your article to other articles, unless they are Wikipedia featured articles. It is possible that you have found some other article that does not meet Wikipedia's standards; if you think that organization doesn't meet the notability criteria, the right thing to do is to begin a deletion discussion of that article, not to create an additional article on a non-notable subject. If this unit is of unusual historical significance, something that people will still need to know a hundred years from now, all you need to do is make that more clear in the article, and add the sources that show that - the books that have been written about this unit, or at least the articles that have been written about it in significant sources. Your reply doesn't really explain why an encyclopedia would need an article about this subject; that this unit operates independently doesn't make it notable. I operate independently, for example, but am not notable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FA#Warfare Here] is a list of articles on military units that have been through Wikipedia's Featured Article process, and which it's reasonable for us to use as a basis for comparison with our own work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

20 people directly responsible for the care of 4,500 Coalition Forces, Contractors, Local Nationals and an unknown number of Enemy Combatants while under a 2-4 hour (depending on your source) effective complex attack in Eastern Afghanistan isn't "notable"? Peer reviewed publications in the form of books and medical journals (both cited) that enhanced and shaped the way combat casualties are treated came from prior members of this unit, isn't notable?

Perhaps you're right. I personally would want to read about it, and all the experiences of the other Forward Surgical Teams in the Military (hence why I'm writing the page), but space must be limited. ArmyOrtho (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the boss of Wikipedia- if this unit really does meet WP:MILUNIT, then the folks reviewing it for the deletion discussion will see that and decide to keep it. Notice that Wikipedia's definition of notable isn't the same as 'good' or 'worthy of respect' or even 'interesting.' If this article really has shown that this organization meets Wikipedia's guidelines, then it'll be kept- and if I see that it does meet the guidelines, I'll even change my own comment. I admit that I'm a little concerned that most of what you say isn't really relevant to the question of whether this article meets the guidelines, but my experience has been that people involved with the military are very, very good at understanding and following highly specific sets of guidelines, so I won't worry about it, and will just leave you to develop it on your own. That discussion will probably go for nearly a week - they usually do - so there's plenty of time, and you don't need me in the talk page adding stress to the process. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't help but notice the navbox for the US Army Medical Command has a selection for Forward Surgical Teams on it...

As for the dripping sarcasm of your remark, it honestly didn't surprise me. ArmyOrtho (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There was sincerely absolutely no sarcasm intended in any part of what I have said on this discussion. I think you're the leader of a military organization, unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines, trying to create an article. I made a good-faith attempt to point you toward the rules, because I think your work is important, and I don't like to see you wasting your valuable time on a project which my experience tells me is likely to be deleted. I'm sorry if anything about my attempts to help you - help you either create an article that will work for Wikipedia, or to understand why it won't work and not waste any further time - seemed like sarcasm to you, because my intention was only to help. I don't think there's anything I can add to what I have said that will be any more help, though, and I don't want to hurt your feelings any more than it seems that I have already done without intending to. I hope that you don't end this week too frustrated by your experience, and that you'll decide to stay at Wikipedia to help develop other articles about medicine and warfare, because we can always use knowledgeable volunteers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You say it's best not to refer to articles that have already been written, as they may not be up to the acceptable standard for Wikipedia. How about those articles that have been reviewed and found to be within the standard of Wikipedia? I refer back to the 541st FST wiki page, that has written in the "talk" tab the following:

As far as I can tell, this is the only Forward Surgical Team that is part of this project. Who would I need to speak with to have the other FSTs added? ArmyOrtho (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject banner is not any form of "stamp of approval". It merely indicates what sort of people might be interested in the article. By adding that banner, the page gets listed in the relevant WikiProject, and editors there can (but often do not) review the article for possible improvement or for assessment as to whether it belongs in the encyclopedia. Clearly, the article you have mentioned may or may not have been given the proper scrutiny. That is irrelevant. We are not reviewing the other article in this discussion, we are reviewing this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that no one who was familiar with WP:MILUNIT noticed that article before you, and I am sorry that its existence made the notability criteria confusing. Wikipedia's always-in-progress nature can be a little baffling at first; Wikipedia doesn't have a staff that vets every article, just volunteer editors like you and me, doing our best. I've nominated the article for deletion- thanks for pointing out the problem with it. The only articles that have Wikipedia's 'stamp of approval' are the ones on the list of featured articles, and, to a lesser extent, the ones on the list of good articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, here's how it works:

Staff Sergeant Freddy Jones finds out his next assignment will be as a squad leader with C Company, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry at Ft. Riley, Kansas. He wants information about his unit: where they are, what they've done, where they've been in the War on Terror, have they seen any significant action in the past, does the unit have any Unit Awards (which he'll need to procure for his uniform)? That kind of stuff. Where does SSG Jones turn? Wikipedia, because there is a wiki page for everything. Now, when he searched for C Company, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry, he'll find the page for the 18th Infantry Regiment that includes all three Battalions (1st, 2nd, and 3rd.) This will give him the information he needs because the Higher Unit (the Regiment and the Brigade to which his battalion is currently assigned) has the same function as the unit to which he's being assigned (they are all infantry units). The mission of the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry will be very similar, if not exactly the same, as the mission of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team (its higher unit). These units will, as a rule, deploy and fight as a Brigade Element, meaning that whatever action the 2BCT saw, the 18th Infantry saw, and whatever awards the 2BCT earned, the 18th Infantry earned. Because of this, rolling the 1-18IN into the 2BCT page makes perfect sense and gives SSG Jones the information he's looking for.

This, however, is not the case for Forward Surgical Teams. As currently arranged, the Forward Surgical Teams of the US Army are assigned as Direct Reporting Units to a Combat Support Hospital, but these two units have different functions. The Forward Surgical Teams do not deploy with, live with, or work for the Combat Support Hospitals. They are not co-located in the same area of operation (or even the same war as has been the case multiple times with the 28th CSH and the assigned FSTs). The role of the Combat Support Hospital is so drastically different than the role of a Forward Surgical Team that rolling the FST up into the page of the higher unit CSH will not give any pertinent information as to what the FST mission is, where they are in theater, who they have worked with, where they've been, what action they've seen, and what awards they've earned (all information a military history enthusiast, or a future member of the team and his/her family would want to know).

These Forward Surgical Teams act independently of their assigned higher headquarters, are constantly being deployed across the world, and are routinely part of significant action. Their notable achievements are numerous and are not the same as the achievements of any higher element. Physicians assigned to these units have written about their experiences in peer-reviewed publications and based on their experiences and lessons learned in the Forward Surgical Team setting, the standards of patient care have evolved over the the duration of the conflicts in which they've been involved. Because of this, the Forward Surgical Teams should have their own pages, unlike the Company and Battalion sized elements of a maneuver unit such as an infantry or armor brigade.

Setting a "size limit" for "notability" makes sense only if subordinate units have the same purpose or mission as their higher command. By following these guidelines, you will lose a vital portion of military history that will not adequately be covered on any other page. ArmyOrtho (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)