Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Marshall


 * 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 of the debate was keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Harold Marshall
Delete Subject not proven to be notable. Michael Dorosh 15:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, not only is he the most notable Canadian sniper in history, prior to Afghanistan, he was the subject of a widely publicised photograph during wartime. Nominator for Deletion is also a user who has repeatedly inserted WP:NOR into the article, and AFD-ed...apparently in response to being told that if sources call it a machete, he can't present his opinion that it's not, in the article itself without reference. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I am very surprised to find this fascinating snippet of history in AfD. There's not much point having Category:Snipers, if you don't have articles on snipers to go in it. Tyrenius 16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no evidence that he was ever even employed in his trade - the only historical facts on record are that he was in the Army in 1944 and had his picture taken once. So tell me - what else does anyone know about him? He's simply not notable other than for having a picture taken.  Beyond that, what makes him notable? No one has listed any reasons.  Incidentally, I am the webmaster for the Calgary Highlanders website and have access to the War Diary of the battalion. I don't mean to denigrate his service, but I can safely say there was nothing to distinguish him from the hundreds of other Canadian Army snipers that served in the Second World War, and absolutely no basis to describe him as "the most notable Canadian sniper in history" - in fact, that would go to Ducky Norwest or Pegmahbow or one of the other First World War snipers.  The First World War snipers have easily verifiable kill records - there is no evidence out there that Marshall ever even shot anyone. So no, my objection is not to the misidentification of the kukri on his belt (my analysis is based on discussions with regimental museum staff and examination of the photo enlarged to 3 feet square, so please, sherucij, let me know what examination you have done besides looking at an internet picture), but rather to the fact that the entire article is a waste of bandwidth based on the fact we don't know anything about him, nor, frankly, are we like to given the lack of information available in the public record about him. He's simply not encyclopaedic.Michael Dorosh 17:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The point is that it's not the job of Wikipedia to examine enlarged photos to draw our own conclusions, it's to report what is WP:Verifiable, and your personal opinon isn't. If it makes you feel better about his notability, The Government's "Military Heritage" website has a painting of him.  I'll concede that the first world war did bring more repute to Canadian snipers than Marshall's role in the second world war, but that still does not give any reason  he should be AFDed.  Look at Mary Ann Vecchio, she's a runaway teenager who happened to be photographed reacting to the Kent State shootings, but it would be ridiculous to claim she's therefore "not notable". Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Dorosh's arguments make the case for articles on Ducky Norwest or Pegmahbow to be created, not for this one to be deleted. Also there may be a need for revision of the article, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. And I'm afraid Wiki does require verifiable references, not personal research. Tyrenius 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just in case you were interested, we have Francis Pegahmagabow and Henry Norwest...now, back on-topic before I bring cocktails! :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Subject seems reasonably notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Beno1000 22:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not according to the actual criteria for notability. See below.Michael Dorosh 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I get 47 Ghits on him and that seems like a ton for a WWII noncom --Deville (Talk) 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Only four of them refer to him, and all four are from websites I've created. The rest do not even refer to military subjects, let alone him in particular.Michael Dorosh 02:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

NOTABILITY CRITERIA So far, no one has actually posted what criteria they feel Marshall meets. So far all we have is So honestly, what else is there?
 * Was subject of a famous photo. (Like millions of others)
 * Was in the Canadian military in the Second World War. (So were approximately 1 million men and women).
 * Was employed as a sniper. (So were thousands of soldiers).
 * Shows up only four times in a Google search, all four from pages produced by the same webmaster.

According to: deletion guidelines I don't feel any of the "arguments" here are done in good faith. Especially inflating 4 google hits into 47, the majority of which have nothing to do with the subject.Michael Dorosh 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I find the aspersions on my integrity to be unwarranted and unfounded, and would be grateful if you could stick to the argument, and not what you think the motives are of the people who have a different point of view to you. I am quite entitled to like this article and want it kept, without that meaning I am not acting in good faith. Tyrenius 06:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A sniper who was the subject of a famous photo is a good enough reason for me, and the statement "a famous photo. (Like millions of others)" is self-contradictory. It's either famous, or it's like millions of others. Tyrenius 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Ken Bell, if the photography is notable. -- E ivindt@c 05:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this - the photo is famous, not the person. If the photo is notable, then it should be shown on Ken Bell's page, rather than meriting it's own.Michael Dorosh 12:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You should change your delete to merge vote then, but I think it's splitting hairs. It means if the article were titled "Photograph of Harold Marshall" it would be a notable subject.Tyrenius 14:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't, I'd recommend that article be deleted also.Michael Dorosh 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note for comparison Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima, an article about the photo, which is also reproduced in an article about the photographer Joe_Rosenthal and in one about the Battle of Iwo Jima. Tyrenius 15:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They're making an entire movie about the Iwo flag raising - the difference is that we know a lot about the guys that raised the flag, Ira Hayes, etc., and the flag raising itself was a notable event. Marshall is photographed... standing in a field, posing for a picture. See the difference? There is nothing notable about standing in a field posing for a picture. Raising the flag on Suribachi is infinitely more notable for reasons that should be self-evident.Michael Dorosh 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It was the photograph that made the flag-raising a notable event, because it was a striking image. Without the photo, the event would have been not known about and entirely forgotten. A notable event (e.g. the assassination of Lincoln) is remembered in its own right, even though there is no photograph. In both cases, of flag-raising and Marshall, we are recording the power and notability of an image which is symbolic. Proof of this is that no one bothers about the fact that there was an earlier (and smaller) flag raised at the same spot on Iwo Jima. That was the more notable event&mdash;but not the notable image. The photo of Marshall embodies values, equivalent, for example, to the tomb of the unknown soldier. Marshall is an individual, but he represents much more than that. To just talk about him standing in a field is reductionism. Tyrenius 16:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The point you are missing is that the other photos cited were taken during notable events; a non-notable person standing in a field is not notable. The photo itself is notable and should be included on Ken Bell's page, the Calgary Highlanders page and on the Sniper page, but Marshall is not notable himself.  Nor is the photo all that remarkable; it is often reproduced, but there is no history to the photo the way there is to the flag raising on Suribachi. If anyone can identify the location that Marshall is standing in please post it here. You can't, because even the photographer didn't note the location - it wasn't noteworthy. It's a cool picture, but nothing more, and if you want to start an article on H.A. Marshall Photo then your argument might hold some water. If you are lobbying for an article on H.A. Marshall then you have still not presented any of the wikipedia criteria for notability.Michael Dorosh 18:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel this response answers my points, so I will leave it for others to judge. However, there is a blatant contradiction in the statements just made between "The photo itself is notable" and "Nor is the photo all that remarkable". Tyrenius 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say is that the photo is all that is remarkable in the case of Marshall, but the photo does not show anything notable. The photo of the Iwo flag raising is not just notable for being a famous photo, it actually shows a famous event - the 2nd flag raising on Suribachi. The men involved have well documented histories, including an upcoming movie.  Nothing has entered the historical record about Marshall other than he posed for a picture once and the picture was really cool.  Ask yourself - if you can't even type out where Marshall was born, how old he was, or when he joined the Army, much less what he did in the service, how is he notable?  On the other hand, Ira Hayes' postwar history is well known and one could probably fill a few paragraphs on his history alone, not to mention the dramatic impact of the flag raising(s) - they came early in the battle but the ships at sea and men on the island that witnessed the flag then and in days after had much to say about the event. Marshall's photo is notable only for being cool - no one knew that it was being taken and it didn't see widespread publication until after the war.  It was not an EVENT the way the Suribachi raising or the Kent State shootings were. It is only notable in that it has been widely reproduced despite the subject being not notable.Michael Dorosh 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The interesting "event" in the case of Marshall was World War II in which he lost his life, as did many others. The photo has obviously come to symbolise things about that war, in the same way that the flag-raising photo has. You've put the horse before the cart. That photo doesn't show a famous event. It made the event famous. The only reason the event is famous is because it's a great photo. The only reason the men involved have "well documented histories" is because the photo generated interest in them. They are just ordinary soldiers otherwise. A photo doesn't have to show an "event" to be notable: it can, for example, symbolise values, character, etc. The photo of Marshall is well known and it is only right to give him the dignity of acknowledging who he is. As you say yourself, it has been "widely reproduced". This fact alone justifies the article in wiki terms. Tyrenius 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * HE DIDN'T DIE during the war. DHH website incorrectly lists him as dead but see the list of fatal casualties at www.calgaryhighlanders.com - he's not on it. He lived through the war. I guess he's so notable that no one even knows he lived, eh? Besides I never said the photo wasn't notable. Marshall himself isn't. Doesn't merit an article. The photo can be discussed on Bell's page, the Sniper page, or any of a thousand Second World War related pages. There is nothing to populate a page on him alone.Michael Dorosh 02:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't strike out my comments. A Canadian Government site states Marshall was killed. Wiki goes by existing sources.


 * This AfD strikes me as increasingly bizarre. An earlier stage of discussion was:
 * ''if the article were titled "Photograph of Harold Marshall" it would be a notable subject.Tyrenius 14:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't, I'd recommend that article be deleted also.Michael Dorosh 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is followed by:
 * if you want to start an article on H.A. Marshall Photo then your argument might hold some water ... User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 18:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems unhelpful to quibble over whether an article Harold Marshall or Photograph of Harold Marshall is unacceptable, but H.A. Marshall Photo might be.
 * Furthermore, it is stated on the Calgary Highlanders website run by Michael Dorosh, "This photograph of Sergeant Harold A. Marshall, a Calgary Highlanders sniper, is perhaps one of the most famous Canadian images to come out of the Second World War." This is a strong claim. As the article history shows, Michael Dorosh was one of the two editors working on the article and did not express any concerns about notability etc, until there was a difference over what sort of knife Marshall was carrying. Sherurcij stated it was a machete, referencing a page on a site run by Michael Dorosh. This page was then suddenly unavailable (but is archived here). It was replaced by one with modified information more favourable to Michael Dorosh's argument.Tyrenius 05:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Tyrenius, you're REALLY not getting the fact that any information on the Internet regarding Marshall is a result of my putting it there. The DHH site has a painting of him, and inaccurately notes that he died.  Anything else was my doing. And I am stating from a position of authority that this guy, as far as is known, is not notable.  I had my reservations from the minute I saw this page was created, but I followed WP guidelines and presumed good faith, thinking that perhaps there was some original research out there to shed light on him.  That didn't happen - what happened was someone tried to create an article on a person based solely on a picture caption. So yes, there was questions about notability all along, but because I was presuming good faith, I didn't voice them until it became apparent the article creator had absolutely no evidence of notability - which was evidenced by his bizarre decision to argue the kukri handle.  The photos of Canadian machetes are clearly shown on my website. I've examined large blowups of the photo and discussed it at length with museum staff at the regimental museum. Kudos to Sherurcij for being bold; unfortunately in this case, it has come to a dead end in an article about someone lacking notability.Michael Dorosh 13:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, you know full well that Marshall didn't die during the war becuase you yourself posted at the User Talk for Marshall's page that there is a photo of him taken in the 1970s. So who's not arguing in good faith now?Michael Dorosh 13:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the 1970s photo reference only after I made my last post here, and put the info where it could do some good on the article talk page, so please again do not make implications. I don't see it as relevant to the AfD debate particularly, nor what kind of knife he was carrying for that matter. It's irrelevant who put the information on the web sites referenced: the fact is that they can now be used as a reference. I would like to congratulate you, however, on your research and your very informative sites. Also the Canadian government has seen fit to give him a page, as a separate source for reference. However, I find it odd that you are "bigging up" the prominence of the photo on sites you run, and arguing the opposite here. I think this discussion has covered the points of view more than adequately, and suggest we agree to now let editors make up their own minds, based on what has been said to date. Tyrenius 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - He is the subject of a famous photo. Someone may want to know about him someday and disk space is cheap.  Cjrother 22:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And they'll be sorely disappointed by the article here if they do, because all that is known is that he served in the military in 1944, was photographed once, and wore a Denison smock. They can gather all that just by looking at his photo. :-)Michael Dorosh 12:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - According to Wikipedia deletion guidleines, articles shall be deleted if they are (1) not neutral, (2) not verifiable, (3) are original research or (4) are subject to copyright. This article does not seem to violate any of these guidelines.  As to deleting because the subject is not proven to be notable, I can't see where that is a criteria that has to be considered when determining whether or not to delete an article.  Regards, Roozal.
 * Notability - try reading here. You can't write an article about your baby sister, even if you 1) wrote a neutral article about her, 2) verified the article, 3) did original research and 4) waived copyright. An encyclopedia only includes notable figures. Read the page on Notability for more info, but I should have thought that would be self-evident. From that page:


 * Deceased people
 * People who have been deceased for some time pose the simplest question, because history is usually clear about the nature and extent of their importance. With historical perspective, there is less controversy about the facts of their contribution. The basic test in this case is:
 * Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?


 * Marshall does not pass the test - what contribution has he done other than pose for a picture? The enduring historical record was altered by Bell, for taking his picture; Marshall himself was simply a soldier who did his duty. If he performed any extraordinary acts, it is not in the historical record.Michael Dorosh 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He is notable, as previously stated, for being the subject of "one of the most famous Canadian images to come out of the Second World War", as stated on the Calgary Highlanders website run by the same Michael Dorosh, who is arguing so vehemently that he is not notable. If someone's image is disseminated worldwide, then that bestows a notability for that fact alone. Tyrenius 15:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are arguing then that he is passively notable? Incidentally you've quoted a "Doresh" a couple times now - who is that in reference to? I refer you back to the notability guidelines - you can argue that he has altered history and I will grant that the photo itself is notable due to the impact it has made - but still argue that the man himself is not provably notable given how little we know about him or are likely to see reproduced. Perhaps in 5 years if the proposed centennial history project comes off (which I hope to write) you can quote from my book, if there is anything of note in our archives about Marshall that is, and I decide to include it. :-) Michael Dorosh 17:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies for incorrect spelling&mdash;I have changed previous mentions. There are plenty of people whose main claim to fame is being in front of camera lenses for images which get well known.... Tyrenius 18:35, 3 May 2006 (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.