Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian MFO Members Hit-and-Run


 * 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  Spartaz Humbug!

Australian MFO Members Hit-and-Run

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article contains no evidence that this alleged incident is notable. The only references to it are the testimony of an Australian soldier to a parliamentary inquiry on military justice in the Australian Defence Force. The incident recieved a single paragraph in the inquiry's final report which is focused on how the Army treated the soldier who reported the incident, and not the incident per-se. Nothing comes up on Google searches of 'Australian MFO hit and run' or 'Australian Army hit and run Egypt'  which strongly suggests that when this incident was publicly reported it didn't recieve a significant level of attention. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, apparently unnotable event. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete it, it just needs refinement. I served in the MFO a couple of years after it happened and it has been used as an example of why incidents should be reported immediately. It is a deterrent to others. - dogfit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogfit (talk • contribs) 07:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)  — Dogfit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Can you provide any examples of published materials which discuss this incident in depth? --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the parliamentary inquiry would not have included the incident if it did not happen, so irrespective of whether there is extensive published information, a major government inquiry DID publish it. The possible reason for not finding much on the internet is because it was reported in 1995, prior to internet explosion - dogfit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogfit (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to both the article and the parliamentary report, the incident was supressed until 2005 when it first came to light as part of the parliamentary inquiry into the military justice system. Since then the only coverage it seems to have recieved is the single paragraph in the inquiry's report. As such, I don't think that it meets the requirements of Notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Keeping it suppressed obviously upset someone as per this entry in history trail of the article so it has struck a nerve 22:33, 2 June 2007 203.214.14.243 (Talk) (90 bytes) (←Replaced page with 'Hartshorn is not a desert rat, he is simply a rat. Category: Middle East peace efforts') (undo) the page had also been blanked at one stage - dogfit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.43.79 (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.   — Littleteddy (roar!) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Nick Dowling's comment about providing examples of published materials which discuss this incident in depth, paperwork is held in the collections section at the Australian War Memorial which discusses this incident in depth and the documents are open to the public. This refutes claims that it was suppressed till 2005. Go to http://www.awm.gov.au/database/collection.asp and type David Hartshorn into the collections search engine and you will be taken to an outline of the public documents held. - dogfit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogfit (talk • contribs) 05:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)  — Dogfit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Merge an abridged version (one or two sentences, with refs) back into Multinational Force and Observers, which is where it came from in May 2007. This incident is non-notable and an article of its own is unwarranted.
 * I don't see how a collection of personnal papers held in the AWM's massive archives (in which all soldiers are invited to donate their personal papers) meets WP:N or WP:V. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Those archives contain public documents such as newspaper articles and papers which came into the archive from the public domain Nick so what is your argument?Glanvis (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also found another article in the Weekend Australian Newspaper which was published in 1997. It is titled "Courage Under Fire" and go into depth about the incident - to see article details go to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/archive and type staff sergeant david hartshorn into the search engine and select unlimited - you will be taken to the article details but to read the whole article will have to subscribe - I did and it is comprehensive - more evidence that the incident was published and not suppressed at stated by Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glanvis (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)  — Glanvis (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Actually, it's the article which states that this was supressed. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we have proved that wrong haven't we Nick and we also proved that you weren't thorough enough with your research or you would have found the earlier article yourself. So the wiki article needs some fine tuning but it is not necessarily non notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glanvis (talk • contribs) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)  — Glanvis (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not really: one news story isn't anywhere near enough to meet WP:N (see: WP:NOT). Significant coverage is needed. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A feature article written by a defence journalist about an incident in the Australian Newspaper is significant. Because it was published in hard copy in 1997 that would explain why it is hard to find on the internet. I support the wikipedia article with some adjustmentsSigsA (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) — SigsA (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ohhh Nick you didn't do enough research did you?Proqa (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Newspaper article referred to in section 3 of the hartshorn collection at the Australian War Memorial is a hard copy of the article electronically accessable via the Australian Newspapers online archive. That gives two options to access comprehensive information on the incident in the public domain. The article in the Australian newspaper is in the form of a feature by then defence journalist Don Greenlees, who wrote it only 3 years after the incident occurred, so Nick Dowling doesn't appear to have been thorough enough with his research before jumping to his conclusions that the article is 'non notable' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glanvis (talk • contribs) 08:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)  — Glanvis (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. We now have three brand new Meat/Sockpuppet accounts, , and  contributing to this discussion.  Sorry guys, but thats not how things work here.  Deletion or retention will be determined by a genuine consensus and sending your mates here or creating new accounts to comment is wasting everyone's time, including especially your own.  &mdash;Moondyne click! 11:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A further two meat/sockpuppets ( and ) have also added material to this article and added references to it and to David Hartshorn to another article with little connection to this one and I'm suprised that they haven't turned up here as well yet. It's pretty blatant. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick. Its worth noting all of them here so at least we can keep an eye on them.  As I said, its their time they're wasting. &mdash;Moondyne click!


 * Delete - incident does not seem to be sufficiently notable to merit an article. I can't even see any justification to merge elsewhere - either to the article on the unit or middle-east peace keeping.  That reporting of incidents needs reform or even a parliamentary enquiry to promote reform does not require an article.  I have concerns about some of the annotations about parliamentary privelege etc.--Matilda talk 05:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.