Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/274th Forward Surgical Team (Airborne)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. The keep side is clearly in the majority here, and they have presented several secondary sources thus supporting their claims of notability, and I cannot see that the delete side have rebutted those arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

274th Forward Surgical Team (Airborne)

274th Forward Surgical Team (Airborne) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable military unit. This small unit (about 20 members) does not meet the notability criteria for military units or the general notability guidelines. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This unit does not meet the basic list of intrinsically notable military units, and the sources cited don't seem to support a claim that this particular unit is of unusual significance. I think this is simply a result of a misunderstanding of the needs of an encyclopedia; there is no disparagement of the unit or its leader in saying that this is not a subject that the encyclopedia needs an article about, unless I have misread either the article's sources or the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've found a few sources for the unit's activities,[1][2] but it's not enough to justify an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per WP:MILUNIT, which I quote: presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I believe that this unit has received significantly more coverage that might be routinely awarded to, say, the 626th Brigade Support Battalion, which is a largely unknown component of the 101st Airborne. This is a partial listing of the mentions I found in Google Books:
  • On Point: The United States Army In Operation Iraqi Freedom [3]
  • Roberts Ridge: A Story of Courage and Sacrifice on Takur Ghar Mountain [4]
  • The United States and South Asia: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, June 14, 2005 [5]
  • None Braver: U.S. Air Force Pararescuemen in the War on Terrorism [6]
  • CCT-The Eye of the Storm [7]
  • The Night Stalkers [8]
  • Shadow Warriors: A History of the US Army Rangers [9]
  • Not A Good Day To Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda [10]
While most of these references refer to the Battle of Takur Ghar, I think it's undeniable that the amount of coverage and mentions received by the unit are enough to establish basic notability at least. And while a single one of those books might not represent significant coverage, I think the combined effect is certainly one of notability. No one mentions the cooks and clerks batallions in the context of major military operations. An additional factor in notability, although not immediately apparent, is the fact that the 274th is one of a few support units that deploy to theaters of operations independently of larger division- or corps-sized forces. This is not common within the US Army.
Additionally, and as it has been pointed out by the author in the article talk page, the combined experiences of the unit were the basis for an academic paper published in PubMed by its surgical team. This type of post-conflict analysis is oftentimes what shapes how a large military force like the US Army structure, train and deploy combat support units. Clearly this particular outfit is part of what is shaping up to be the "new battlefield", or low-intensity conflicts that military forces of sovereign nations will encounter more and more in the future. Not to sound overly dramatic with that, but I do believe that this unit not only meets WP:GNG, but that its article is a valuable part of Wikipedia's coverage of military topics. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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) 09:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "notability" of this unit, I can see both arguments. There are no books written directly about the FST. There are no Medal of Honor recipients from FSTs. However, they are pushed far forward, into the fight, and while their mentions in the cited books may seem trivial to some, their impact has not been. I will be the first to agree that the US Army Forward Surgical Teams don't measure up to the notoriety of SEAL Team 6, but that doesn't mean they are lost into oblivion. I've heard it for as long as learned what an FST is - "It's not on wikipedia. How is that possible?!" The stories behind these units are impressive. Their numerous deployments and operations that they've been in are noteworthy. But, these aren't the types of units to get chapters written about them. They are often references in passing as the docs that saved SGT So-and-so's life, or saved a hand, or a leg, and then the reference moves on more to what sells the books - the fight. Is that significant? Perhaps it would be to the person reading the book. The peer reviewed data that has come from the experiences in these units have, without question, revolutionized the way critically injured patients are cared for. The articles that come from theater are numerous. However, these articles tend to be written by multiple authors and after-the-fact, combining several peoples' experiences into one coherent product. The actual unit may or may not be mentioned. All wikipedia has now is a generic Forward surgical teams post that explains none of this. Expansion of this post would leave out the rich history of the units themselves and the details of the individual FSTs people would look for (where they are, what they've done, where they've been). ArmyOrtho (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an expanded version of WP:ITSUSEFUL, which is generally considered irrelevant in deletion discussions. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think too highly of the sources listed by FRF (note that the best two, the CCT-Eye of the Storm and Shadow Warriors sources, are actually both direct copies of the DoD's Executive Report on Takur Ghar), however in combination with the Peoples and Gerlinger paper I think there's enough to warrnt an article. This (full version at Highbeam) contains quite a bit of relevant info (first medical unit in Iraq, details of their movements and assignments). Whilst I'd agree that this unit is on the outskirts of Wikipedia notability, I think it still falls within the encyclopedia's environs. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(apologies, you caught me mid-edit. ArmyOrtho (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment The "this" referred to by Yunshui is a local paper spotlighting one of their own and his experiences in theater. The fact that his unit happened to be the 274th is merely an aside: the article appears to be about the soldier, not his unit. (Disclaimer: I have only been able to read the free preview as I have not paid to access the full article.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without posting the full article text, I can summarise by saying that yes, its primary topic is Sgt. Jones experiences, but it confirms that the 274th were the first medical unit to enter Iraq, describes briefly their set up of a field hospital on the first day, verifies that the unit received a medal for valour, verifies that they operated at locations in Nasiriyah, Mosul and Baghdad, gives an approximate date for their return and tells us that their primary station is Fort Bragg. That's only the sentences that specifically reference the unit; one could feasibly extrapolate further details of the mission from the more extensive coverage of Sgt. Jones (and yeah I know, WP:NOTINHERITED, yada yada yada...) Yunshui 雲‍水 19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Listed and cited on the article page are 7 articles pulled from Peer-Reviewed medical publications describing the experiences of the 274th Forward Surgical Team members during their multiple deployments overseas. These articles range from simple topics such as a unique way to warm intravenous fluids in a uniquely austere environment to several complete reviews of the of the entire deployment experiences of the teams of surgeons that staffed the unit. I would humbly recommend actually reading these articles before dismissing their validity outright. ArmyOrtho (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To address WikiDan61's (valid) concerns, I'm not trying to make the case that the book sources I mention above represent significant coverage, because individually they don't. I said as much in my initial !vote. And yes, they mostly refer to the same event. I also said as much. My argument is that in the aggregate, what coverage does exist serves to establish a level of notability well above the average military support unit, which I believe is enough to pass WP:MILUNIT. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, organization meets criteria #3 of WP:MILUNIT. There are multiple mentions in non-primary, which could be argued to meet WP:SIGCOV when taken in total. At worse this article could be upmerged into a parent article, but it is my humble opinion, that by meeting criteria #3, the unit is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Forward surgical teams until the peer-reviewed references cited have been wound into the text of the article. Right now they're just a list of citations at the bottom of the article. They don't help anyone except to total points in deletion discussions. Would argue that until the article is rewritten in a properly encyclopedic fashion, incorporating this material into well written prose, it really doesn't remain of use to properly meet the spirit of MILUNIT. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The cited medical journal articles have been written out. This was my original intent, but we were all pulled away for patients before I had the opportunity to expound. Thanks for the suggestions. ArmyOrtho (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do not appear to understand what I meant. Please wind the material into the History section - it's part of the history of the unit. Nobody is likely to find it down there. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict of interest is probably true, but note that I've already lifted my block of ArmyOrtho, since it appears that they were not a sockpuppet of the page creator (who was never blocked). Yunshui 雲‍水 10:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/274th_Forward_Surgical_Team_(Airborne)&oldid=1137522542"