Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense (military)


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Defense (military)

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

This is unverified and is probably original research. It has been tagged as since December 2007. Because of the large number of one- or two-edit contributors, I have not notified any individual contributors of this AfD. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 08:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: unsourced. Alexius08 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Normally I'd say keep because it is a real term, but this one is completely unsourced and I doubt you'd be able to find reliable sources talking about it outside of military manuals. --Banime (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A highly encyclopedic topic, with thousands of books about it dating back to Roman times and beyond. It is taught in every military academy. How well it is done decides the fate of empires and determines who writes the history books. Edison (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This could be turned into an excellent disambiguation page (most of the links are already there), or indeed an excellent military-specfic section of the existing genetic Defense one. But as an article it's a jumble of unsourced assertion.-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact Defense (military) should be a disambiguation page where one would find stuff such as Defensive war, Missile defense, Department of Defense etc as listed subjects. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 19:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, except that Defence is already a disambiguation page. The latter may need an expanded military section if this is deleted.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just roll a military section into the Defence disambig and have Defense redirect there? Though I fear the EngVar warring. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep along with the similar articles. There are tens of thousands of print references from the Romans on down:see   for just one of the alternate wordings .  the subject is much too large to be just a  section of a page, & the concept is general enough for a general article in addition to all the specific ones mentioned above.  . Specific full book reference to atart: Kingston-McCloughry, E. J. (1960). Defense: policy and strategy. New York: Praeger. DGG (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Warfare. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Edison, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Offensive (military) to Offense and Defense (military) for now, or some similar title. Our military coverage is very disorganized. Clark89 (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable concept - but of course, rewrite. Another important concept / pitfull stub.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:35, 12 October 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.