Wikipedia is full of bios of "not notable" people on Wikipedia.

I find some of editors comments on Wikipedia a bit inappropriate seeing the unfortunate girl is still warm in her grave.

Articles for deletion - Jill Meagher

News article
The Age Newspaper (AU) -Murder victim Meagher may be wiped from Wikipedia

Bios of "not notable" people survive because
1. many editors don't care and couldn't be bothered getting these articles deleted.
2. the article is keep alive by a small group of seasoned editors (occasionally the odd admin) usually connected in some way to that person, who know the Wikipedia "system" well enough to play the "system" to enable the article to survive.

From Australia here's typical example of the later.
Daniel Bowen

There's a general principle that anything that gets a lot of news coverage is notable. It doesn't mean that this poor ruddy woman is notable and deserves a biography, only that the circumstances surrounding her death and the reaction to it deserve an article. The attempt to dismiss it as "missing white woman syndrome" is bloody pathetic. That may be a factor in America, but scarcely in Australia.

Still using it wrong.

That should be "wrongly".

It is really ruddy hilarious to see someone who can't speak English well trying to correct a native English speaker. Please stick to correcting people's Urdu or whatever your mother tongue is.

Nope. It is wrong. "wrongly" would need to go before "using" to modify it. You really don't even know the basics of English grammar, do you.

Ottava, please get off this thread. The adults are trying to have a serious discussion, and your repeated assertions that you do not speak English very well are disruptive.

Having a discussion with your other socks is not a discussion.

This is beyond ridiculous! Now Brutus is also my sock.

Tarc, remember your promise?

Yes, this site is bloody well dead. Every time anyone tries to start a serious discussion, along comes Fuckwit and ruins it.

Ottava is a consummate jackass, just like Piers Morgan. The more I come back to this forum and read/watch news programs, the more I become a bitter, angry husk of a man.

The power went out yesterday and I actually got part of a book (The Face of Battle (T-H-L-K-D)) read. It was a fine vacation. I should do it more often.

Keegan just died last year. He was easily my favorite military historian. You might like this article by his friend, Victor Davis Hanson.

Thanks for that. I was wanting to do some reading on World War I and came across Keegan's book. I'm sort of struggling with that one, but "The Face of Battle" is easier reading.

All my favorite military historians appear to be dying off. Keegan is gone. Richard Holmes is gone. Alistair Horne is getting up in age. I read one book by Jeremy Black and it was... painful. Military history is the most popular topic with the public, but academia likes to poo-poo it. I worry there might not be a new generation of military historians to carry on.

yes it's sad. The old school seemed to have a way of making it about larger issues. All the new guys want to do is record stats and play for cheap sentiments. I have to check out those other two you mentioned.

Keegan's WWI book was actually the way I was introduced to him. But yeah I agree it takes a while reading it before you realize wtf a prezymysyl is.