Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military routs


 * 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. No amount of cleanup will fix this problem. You cannot have lists with subjective inclusion criteria. Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

List of military routs
Read expert discussion: Articles for deletion/List of battles (alphabetical)


 * Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 03:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article does need some work, but it can be kept. Many geological routes are used by the armies of countless nations and peoples throughout the world. Sharkface217 04:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not about routes but routs. There is a difference. MER-C 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Reads well to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article is impossible to maintain and members of Wikiproject Military History believe that it should be deleted. --Ineffable3000 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How is an article impossible to maintain? I don't get that concept. Wikipedia isn't a "crystal ball" so if your thinking or future battles, relax.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are numerous military routs and adding all of them to this list is physically impossible. --Ineffable3000 05:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Numerous isn't impossible. If thats true, Wikipedia must be impossible. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please keep WP:N in mind, which ensures that only the most notable routs are made into articles on Wikipedia. --Hemlock Martinis 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subjective criteria. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, has ambigious scope. Yes it defines rout, but how chaotic does a retreat have to be to be a rout? MER-C 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no objective criteria for inclusion. Kirill Lokshin 09:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, never going to adhere to NPOV, listcruft. Ter e nce Ong 10:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NPOV will be a problem. TSO1D 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment err - neither NPOV or "subjectiveness" are a problem, but lack of sourcing is. If sources are added, this is an obvious keep.  Without it, it cannot stand.  Still, I hope someone who cares has the time to add sources. WilyD 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete far to arbitrary of a list criteria.-- danntm T C 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV City. History is written by the winners. If the Nazis had won WWII, would Dunkirk have been considered a "rout"? --Dweller 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kirill, Briangotss, TSO1D, etc. etc. Carom 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete' As per my nomination on 'list of battles' I think this is far too large a topic to be one category, in addition, it invites POV warring with the use of imprecise terms and/or terms with no working definition in this context. Renaming it to the more precise "List of decisive military victories" shows how hard the term is to both define and apply.  Wintermut3 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The definition should be clarified and the article cleaned up. See WP:Deletion policy. Step 1 is to see if the article can be fixed. If so, don't propose deletion, and try to fix the article. I have seen no attempt to discuss that first step, here or on the discussion page, or to suggest that it is impossible, so I consider the deletion votes above to be moot. There is no reason that this list shouldn't exist, only that it should be improved. -NorsemanII 06:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The definition of a rout is arbitrary and of questionable merit, but more importantly, a thorough list of lopsided military engagements would be staggeringly large. I would file this under WP:NOT. Djcastel 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, arbitrary/indiscriminate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: Norseman, the reason that I voted 'delete' without considering how the article might be improved is that it contained what I felt to be a fatal and inevitable POV problem with the term 'rout', and the massive size any list on the topic would have to have to do the topic a modicum of justice.  per WP:not, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, therefore I feel that any list cannot simply address part of the topic without reason for disinclusion.  Because of that, I feel this list is doomed to forever be indiscriminate, because undertaking a total and comprehensive list of the last six thousand years of military history I worry is beyond the scope of what could be done with this page.  Subcategorization and conversion might solve those problems, and I would not vote 'delete' on, say, 'list of routs in the trojan war' or even 'list of routs in WWII' provided the criteria for inclusion were specific enough to preclude POV issues. Wintermut3 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete questionable criterion. `'mikkanarxi 23:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've merged this list into Rout, where this tiny list now serves perfectly as examples for that article. Even the picture fits that article's context and helps illuminate the explanation given in the history section. There's no need for this standalone list anymore.    Th e Tr ans hu man ist   11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The merge was good, but the list allows more to be listed.  The Rout article does not seem to have POV problems. The list introduction can be cleaned up if it doesn't explain the contents sufficiently.  -- Zigger  &laquo;&ordm;&raquo; 02:00, 9 December 2006 (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.