Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military disasters


 * 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 ; please use talk page to discuss refinement of inclusion criteria and possible renaming. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-22 10:24Z 

List of military disasters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

What is a "military disaster"? Even if there is a neutral, verifiable definition of such, isn't it only a "disaster" for one side? This was originally part of List of miscellaneous commercial failures, formerly "List of commercial failures", formerly "List of major flops". It was originally part of a a mass AFD for the remaining "flop" lists, but consensus was that the pages should be listed individually. szyslak (t, c) 20:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for a list to be valid it has to have clear inclusion/exclusion criteria and an encylopedic purpose . This list could claim to the have the second but it definitely fails the first. Madmedea 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to Military disaster and rework the article so that the current list is presented as being examples of military disasters rather than all such disasters. The reworked article could cover topics such as common causes of military disasters, which is a topic covered by a large and well regarded literature. --Nick Dowling 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but move per Nick Dowling. This is a way of presenting information without POV coming into it. One's "military disaster" is another's "anomaly" or whatever. 23skidoo 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- What is a military disaster, you ask? "A military disaster is when one side in a battle or war is unexpectedly and soundly defeated." (emphasis added)  Yes, this needs to be sourced, but the article references two books that include the phrase "military blunder" in the title, so that should not be so hard to do.  If necessary, rename to List of military blunders.  I also do not understand what the point is of noting that it is a disaster for one side only.  If it to assert the existence of POV, to whom is it directed?  Anti-loser POV?  -- Black Falcon 01:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of military affairs-related deletions.   -- Black Falcon 05:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for Black Falcon's reasons. He's got an almost perfect definition, but I'd replace "soundly defeated" with at least "utterly defeated" or something else a bit stronger. The word "disaster" I think also carries an implication of drama -- something that startles. So maybe something like "dramatically and soundly defeated". Serious subjects, seriously considered deserve Wikipedia articles. Military blunders are worth studying, and examples of them are worth noting. With Black Falcon's clear definition, there shouldn't be a POV problem, at least not an inherent one. Noroton 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Black Falcon's reasons. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep the appropriateness of individual items are possibly worth discussing on the article talk page, but a very nice collection of information.DGG 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete it is indeed a 'very nice collection of information' - but it doesn't comply with rules. Its OR and a bit subjective. Thedreamdied 00:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete it is indeed a 'very nice collection of information' - but it doesn't comply with rules. Its OR and a bit subjective. Thedreamdied 00:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It should be possible to declare the inclusion criteria clearly enough. highlunder 11:16, 21 February 2007 (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.