Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known as war heroes (2nd nomination)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 21:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

List of people known as war heroes
This list is not and has no potential to become encyclopedic. The concept of a "war hero" is inherently POV and, more often than not, dependent on specific cultural context. As such, this page is liable to become the breeding ground for edit wars. The page, at present, lists a somewhat random collection of soldiers without any apparent rhyme or reason. The page has lasted for at least eighteen months without the development or use of inclusion criteria.

I would argue that this is so because there is no possibility of developing a satsifactory system that would be both neutral and useful. For most people heroism is not simply the effective discharging of one's duty. It implies something special, something particularly daring. Yet the phrase "war hero" seems to generally connote any effective military leader. On that grounds, this list might contain thousands upon thousands of generals and admirals, with endless debates over whether each one is "heroic" or "considered heroic." Therein lies the other problem. Someone who is heroic for one group of people is anathema to another. The British might still consider Lord Kitchener a war hero, but to many people of Afrikaner descent he's a war criminal. Which is he? Depends on who you talk to.

Brings me to my last point. This list, as it stands, is original research. It's a compilation based on subjective criteria and value judgements, which cannot be independently verified. We aren't here to judge who's a hero and who's not. Now, the link at the bottom to recipients of the Victoria Cross–that's useful. That's a list of people that the British consider heroic. This is a list of people that members of the Wikipedia community consider heroic. Mackensen (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - one man's terroist is another's war hero, and vice versa. I can foresee far too many hideous edit wars popping up over this, so just nip it in the bud.  Too PoV and trollbaity. Proto t c 11:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - I reworked the intro paragraph for NPOV and it seems ok now -- Ryan Norton T 11:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I was thinking it could work if you requried like 5 media sources for each entry.... but I do agree it might not be worth it on second thought -- Ryan Norton T 11:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - this list is a dead loss. It can never be sufficiently comprehensive as to be fair. I agree that it is not and can never be encyclopaedic. Any value it has is easily outweighted by the counterproductive controversy and likely offence that it will cause. Keeping it will only result in further argument over who should be known as 'edit war heroes'. Peeper 11:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherent POV. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Pperos. Meelar (talk) 14:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but maybe not in this form, I was surprised by the 'worst movies ever' page, and how good that article was, this seems to be the same issue. Trollderella 16:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Its would be good for biographical reasons, true that not all may view certain people as "heros". Agree with Trollderella maybe different form Tucats 16:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest to the above two voters that what they really want is an article entitled "War hero," which currently redirects to this list. At war hero there could be a discussion of what a war hero is, without attempting to create a list. This way, someone can read the discussed criteria and decide for themselves, who they think is a war hero. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I disagree with the above two votes. This can never be comprehensive or even consistent and therefore is inherently unencyclopedic.  There is no standard for asserting someone is a war hero so who judges whom to include.  Most of the soldiers who have died in Iraq are being called 'heroes'.  Four Canadian soldiers who died in a friendly-fire accident in Afghanistan are referred to as heroes.  Slaughtered Belgian Peacekeepers in Rwanda are considered Belgian heroes.  None of these should really make this list - but whose call is that going to be?  I say this should be tossed as a flawed enterprise.  If it stays it should be renamed to List of people known as war heroes that we can think of with more to be added as they occur to us. Dottore So 16:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, or at least retitled to "people declared by the media to be war heros". Sdedeo 17:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is there any notable soldier that's not being called a war-hero in the media? It's too broad, it's too vague, it's too POV.--Prosfilaes 17:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This list will always be POV and controversial. Also a war hero is a subjective definition. Usually war heroes are defined by the winning side of a war/conflict while the "heroes" of the losing side are usually eliminated from history.--Joelito 18:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep just because it will be difficult to reach an impartial middle ground on this issue doesn't meen that we should ignore it. True, the line between hero and terrorist is similar to the line between rebel and revoltionary, like I said, difficult, not impossible... HoratioVitero 18:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Further note that if you had taken the tiem to look at my user page you would see that I prefer to include things rather than delete them, it would therefore make sense that I refrain from raping other peopel's entries with out significant motivation HoratioVitero 22:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's also the problem of original research. As it stands, this "article" is completely and totally unsourced. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV. Zoe 20:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete inherently POV and potentially unmanagably large. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete inherent POV. --TheMidnighters 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Every war's got two sides, and one side's hero is the other side's villain. Agree with the idea of a generic War hero article per Mackensen above. —Charles O'Rourke 23:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Marskell 09:22, 26 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.