Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperwar


 * 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 delete. Well, it looks like only a single person advocates having an article on this topic. Concerns range from the notion that this is a non-notable neologism and that it doesn't have an unified definition to concerns that this article is original research, and especially the last point has been only weakly contested; even by the keep argument it seems like the topic is largely synthesized and not covered in a cohesive manner by sources under this term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hyperwar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sending this to AfD per this conversation at MILHIST talk. The article as written is an essay and pure OR excluded by WP:NOTESSAY. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  18:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018!  (distænt write)  18:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. In the creator's own words, "This is a novel concept with precious few resources devoted towards it". If you want a site to host your original research, Wikipedia is not what you're looking for. &#8209; Iridescent 19:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s not my research, it’s a concept that the defense department and Brookings are arguing is ’the’ future of warfare. Abattoir666 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Although I’m sure one could argue that the DOD and the World’s pre-eminent think tank are niche.... Abattoir666 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't what the DoD and the Brookings Institution say. We  what independent, third party, reliable sources say about a topic; if those sources don't exist, it doesn't get an article, and if you claim the sources do exist the onus is on  to find them. &#8209; Iridescent 17:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NEO, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Yesterday I examined many of this article's sources, and found that they do not support the article's text. Most notably, the reference used to cite the concept of "hyperwar" in the lead (and which is later re-used in the body of the article) does not even mention the term "hyperwar"! I made these edits to remove these misleading references. Abattoir666 has since reverted all of my changes (thus re-adding this deception) and abused me in the process - their abusive edit summary is also misleading, as the source does not actually explain how the website got that name. As this appears to be a non-notable topic and the article is largely not supported by the claimed sources, there's no notability and nothing to salvage here. The closing admin may want to consider sanctioning Abattoir666 for this conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete . I concur.  I have reviewed all the sources (bar the one behind a paywall) and they do not support the statements in the article.  The term is clearly WP:NEO.  The Origin section first paragraph describes war, and does not articulate why ‘hyperwar’ is different.  The second paragraph has no source for the first sentence, and the source for the second sentence does not actually support the term as defined.  The Modern Usage section lacks citations for key parts and reads like opinion.  In addition Abbattoir666 has engaged in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR which has prevented any other contributions to the article. Gibbja (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources linking to the article don't explicitly state the word hyperwar for legitimate reasons. For one, because no editors have bothered to make an article explaining the "maturing precision strike regime", an overwhelmingly well documented concept formulated by the DOD's very own Office of Net Assessment, no reader will have any idea what that means. Hence the link to the paper by CSBA, an ONA associate and long term developer of said concept. These references aren't misleading in the slightest, because they have to explain concepts that no one here has yet bothered to explain. Regarding the website Hyperwar, the author the website clearly capitalized on the IT revolution and the common phraseology referring to the Second World War as a "Hyperwar" to name his website "HyperWar" - an unsubtle pun relating to his gratuitous usage of hypertexts and reference to the scale of the Second World War. If it's a matter of sourcing that's at issue, more sources and explication can be provided as necessary, but we run the risk of making a relatively short article indicating another iteration of RMA into a disgusting 3000 word monstrosity. Also, contending the source behind the paywall is a nonstarter, I linked the official source for obvious reasons, but a quick google search will also bring up this alternative [], as well as this video by the article's secondary author []. Don't let my abusive behavior mislead you, particular given it was directed towards misguided edits that would obfuscate a particularly complex subject - while "HyperWar" a history of the Second World War so in depth that the US government picked it up to archive it is worthy of a it's own article. This article describing Hyperwarfare for the masses, a concept spurred on by the president of the World's most powerful Thinktank (also a four star general), covering every recent revolution in military technology is worthy of Wikipedia. Gentlemen, with this article we are at the forefront of the Revolution in Military Affairs, deleting it would just push wikipedia's military section towards obsolescence. Abattoir666 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * https://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/should-pentagon-let-robots-kill-humans-maybe/ what's more Abattoir666 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This more has the fel of a dictionary definition than an encyclopedic article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ^ That can be altered, do you have grammatical/sytactical/content suggestions in mind? Abattoir666 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NEO, WP:CRYSTAL Mztourist (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As the article clearly states, this is hardly a neologism, as it's been in use in roughly four ways for well over 70 years. On the grounds that there is a Federally archived webpage history of the Second World War alone the page should be kept. Nor is this a case of using a crystal ball, Hyperwar in the form espoused by a figure more credible than any wikipedia editor could dream of being, suggests an admixture of Precision-Strike, Drone Technology, etc.. which is already occurring in its nascent form. This is clearly not speculative, but a sober observation by overly qualified individuals on the changing nature of warfare. Abattoir666 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article makes that claim, but several of the supposed sources given for this term and concept do not even include the term "hyperwar". Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's a matter of collocating the sources with appropriate portions of the article, I'm sure this can be remediated with some exertion on my part. But several of the sources are here to explicate Hyperwar's subordinate concepts, like for instance a [maturated precision-strike regime], a key component of any "hyperwar", but one that as of yet has not enjoyed really any "popular" coverage (well... it has, there was that brief fascination with America's wonder weapons following the Gulf Wars, but that's largely dissipated). I don't want to overstep my lane too much, but among military planning circles, the upper-echelons of America's command structure, and scattered among America's "top tier" defense think tanks, phrases like "maturated precision-strike regime" (which really only translates to technological developments in sensors, target packages, satellites, etc..; just think anything Tom Clancy would write about, boy do they love Tom Clancy) are among their vernacular. I guess a way to sort of simplify this (admittedly not enough for general audiences) is that the "Hyperwar" idea translates into a mixture of all of America's (and presumably our potential adversaries, but the US has a habit of setting the global tempo for warfare) doctrinal and operational concepts, as well as the private sector's developments in artificial intelligence and autonomous technology. Otherwise known as Desert Storm redux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abattoir666 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - as above, the article seems to have been written with scant reference to the sources. The term is used in google scholar, but seems to not have a standardised meaning Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2018 (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.