Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military controversies


 * 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 Snowball Delete -- JForget  00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

List of military controversies

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

This page is alleged to be a list of military controversies, but a closer inspection suggests that the page has OR issues and POV issues as well. These are thought by editers at MILHIST to be enough to warrent an afd for the article, as we do not think it can be salvaged, therefore I have filed this afd to begin the process for removing the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is an indiscriminate list (almost any military action will be by nature "controversial", as there are two sides of the tale at minimum), and connects things that are only loosely related to each other. By extension, it creates a coatrack, perhaps you could say a coatrack in reverse, by placing things out of context adjacent to each other, which implies some kind of equivalence. The first example is perfect in showing the tendentious aspects of this list. Surely someone has looked back in history and found actions to be labeled "war crimes" by modern standards, but those standards (widely ignored even today) didn't even have the merest conception in their day. It's sort of bizarre to do this, and not encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Per nom's concerns.  a s e nine  say what?  20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Quite obviously POV and biased, should be deleted immediately Skinny87 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per all of the above.--Looper5920 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Although the article could, perhaps, be rewritten to eliminate most of the narrative, I feel that it's more insulting to have one person revise the work of another beyond recognition, than it is to have a group of people argue that the work be taken down. Although I find the article to be interesting, and have saved it to my computer, it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies.  Mandsford (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, there can never be qualify criteria for this, that wouldn't be POV/OR. Ryan 4314   (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV and WP:COATRACK article, nothing here that isn't already covered in the individual articles. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not sure if this was intended as a POV fork of List of War Crimes, but that article exists, and is well-referenced, and less arbitrary with respect to inclusion. --MCB (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kyriakos (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's articles like this which give indiscriminate lists of information a bad name. The contents of this article are a random collection of distasteful incidents and attrocities, few of which are actually controversial, with some OR commentary and I don't think that it can be salvaged. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - the article actually fails to define what a military controversy is. I would actually suggest that there is a place for such a list, however, it would be useful to first create a definition and go from there. Current article is actually a collection of mostly war crimes which have lists already. I'd say a military controversy would be the failure of the US Army to adopt the UK's 17lb gun during Second World War, or the order By Stalin for troops not to prepare for combat on the 21 June 1941 despite ample indicators, the focus on building bombers by the RAF prior to 1939. I.e. controversial decisions that impacted primarily on military operations.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with comments of mrg3105 above. The current version of the article is unsalvageable and should be deleted.--Whiskey (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SNOW? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, its already been said why. I never thought someone would be able to tie Gitmo, the holocaust, and the Teutoberg Forest in the same article... but I was wrong. MrPrada (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Roger Davies - how many of us saying the same thing does it take...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 14 May 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.