Talk:Mike Broihier

Need to add history of Broihier
Hi there. I've been warned about adding to this page? I'm filling in missing military, education, and post-military career information that is easily verifiable and publicly sourced. I was warned this is considered "promotional." Can you explain exactly what part of this objective fact is "promotional" and I will exclude it. Deleting all the additions I've made seems unfair. LuChristoph (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)LuChristoph
 * All of it is promotional - unless you can prove that it s notable independent of the campaign. As long as you link it to the political campaign - you are being promotional. If his military career is not independently notable, you can't add it. At all. Do not add it until you can establish notability independent of the political campaign. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:9183:49A1:90EB:29FD (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until more major reliable third-party sources are added Ylevental (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Could the anonymous deleter cite a Wikipedia policy which says a politician's back stories can only be covered if those back stories were independently notable? I think the standard is simply that they are covered in reputable sources. WP:NOTEWORTHY says "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles... Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Reputable sources have been covering Broihier's background, because they judge it matters. Similarly a professor may be notable because of important research, or an actor because of blockbuster roles, and reputable sources often write about the professor and actor after they enter public awareness, and the reporter covers their background too. Their history at professional schools, or previous careers as a farmers or soldiers would not have been notable before the research or blockbuster, but they are legitimate topics if reliable sources cover them, with due weight, and primarily with secondary sources. Can anyone cite a Wikipedia policy which excludes that background info? Numbersinstitute (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)