Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory

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

This is an article without a neutral point of view, and by its very nature, a hotbed of original research. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article is very useful. I and my students refer to it at least once a semester. Kingturtle (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is, and you could always keep a copy of it in your userspace, or download the book version. But this AfD isn't about how useful it is, it's about whether or not it meets the policies on neutrality and original research. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then work on converting any original research to non-original research. The idea behind the article is useful. Kingturtle (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can too, of course! However, my point is that the very premise of the article is one of original research. "List of possible exceptions" - read the columns in that table, they're full of opinions and unsubstantiated claims. They base their comments on different sources, standards and data. Who is to say what's a possible exception? Who's to qualify the mitigation (far-right column)? It's not a constructive basis for a neutral, verifiable article, I'm afraid. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then change the name of the article. The premise of the article is valid, useful, and has plenty of non-original research that can be used. Unfortunately, with my schedule right now, I don't have the time to do the work :/ although I'd love to. Kingturtle (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Many researchers have discussed this topic. As long as you clearly state who claims a particular case is an exception or not and on what grounds, it follows every policy. E.g. "THE CASE OF THE U.K. DECLARATION OF WAR ON FINLAND: DEC. 6, 1941" Wayman, "This only excludes the war between ..." Rummel, Kargil War, "According to Page Fortna[56] and Muppidi[57], this is the most straightforward exception to democratic peace." Jacob Lundberg (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this counts as a synthesis. Delete .— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, synthesis, that's the word I was looking for - thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question TBH I'm not sure that I follow the argument for deletion here. Lots of pages are "hotbeds for original research".  That doesn't mean they should be deleted, as long as they are potentially verifiable and can be improved.  Similarly, its also not clear to me that everything in here is necessarily unpublished synthesis.  It seems like, again, many of these points can in principle be verified.  Finally, you say that it is 'without an NPOV'.  I'm not sure what you mean by that.  The only argument I can think of for deletion is that it is a crosscategorization of democracies and wars, but because it directly relates to an existing article (democratic peace theory)) I don't really think it is inherently un-encyclopedic.  Would someone like to amplify on these arguments? Locke9k (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SYN is about how far it's reasonable to take the sources. You can't take sources much further than they go themselves.  In this case, several disparate sources are being pulled together to advance an argument that the sources themselves don't make, so a group of individually sourced or sourceable statements, when put together, can constitute original research.
 * AfD is the process of asking whether Wikipedia should have an article with this title. That's the only proper question for AfD; if the answer is "yes" then we keep and improve, and if it's "no" we delete the article.  In this case, I don't believe Wikipedia can or should have a "List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory", because I don't believe it would be possible to create such an article without a synthesis of the kind we're talking about.  I feel that sourced material properly belongs in Democratic peace theory or elsewhere.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an extensive literature on this topic. This article is definately verifiable. E.g. Huth, Paul K. & Allee, Todd L. (2002), The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) and Wayman, Frank W. (2002), "Incidence of militarized disputes between liberal states, 1816–1992", paper, International Studies Association, New Orleans discuss cases. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – yeah, definitely synthesis from looking at the content and a couple of sources. One could also infer that from the name of the article: "List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory". MuZemike 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The theory and its possible exceptions are widely discussed. See e.g. when Tony Blair's visited The Daily Show and talked about whether the Falklands War was an exception. If it fails to meet policies it should be edited, not deleted. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any doubt that the Democratic peace theory is widely discussed. The question before us is whether a list of possible exceptions merits a separate article.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you would you be comfortable with renaming the article "List of wars between democracies"? It seems like that would be a verifiable list that would contain essentially the same content.Locke9k (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have no objection at all to a properly-sourced List of wars between democracies and I'd be willing to help produce such an article.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  14:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd advise using the current article as a guide, rather than just renaming it and making token edits, for what it's worth. I still think the current article should be deleted. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 14:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like much of the present list is will sourced and could be added to such an article. If thats the case, a namechange and editorial work seems preferable over a delete. Some of the entries may have to be cut out, but thats not sufficient reason for a delete.Locke9k (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Woah, TreasuryTag. Why are you assuming only token edits?  It seems to me like there is a lot of good info in this article.  Just because it is going to take major edits to get this into good shape isn't a good reason to delete it.  I don't know what you mean by "guide".   If we agree that there is good material in this article that should go into that one then we should preserve the edit history commensurate with the GDFL.  Then we can delete anything that isn't verifiable and possibly make a great article. Locke9k (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My concerns are not that there is unverifiable information, it's that there is synthesis. It's entirely original research, and renaming it doesn't make any difference. Some of it's based on Polity data, some on Freedom House... it needs complete rewriting, just using the original text as an inspiration for what needs fresh research, so GFDL shouldn't enter into it. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above discussion, but rename "List of wars between democracies" and cleanup appropriately to fit new name. Locke9k (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought: I'll add one more thought, although it doesn't necessarily belong in an AFD. Given how large the boxes in this list are, it might be more appropriate as a normal article rather than a list.  That way there could be appropriate discussion of the possible arguments for an against it being categorized as a war between democracies. I think that also might be helpful in alleviating some of the issues raised here.  Locke9k (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The discussion above indicates that there are good alternatives to deletion. Per WP:BEFORE, AFD is only for hopeless cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stricken my earlier !vote because I've changed my position based on good arguments from both TreasuryTag and Locke9k. I now think this should be Userfied, to me or to Locke9k or both, so we can re-use some of the sources to create a fresh article called List of wars between democracies.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Such action is better done with a move which will preserve the edit history per the WP:GFDL. Any editor may do this and so I will be bold as the proposed title seems sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to object, and still contend that the article should be deleted. It needs to be completely rewritten, so GFDL shouldn't come into it. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It may still be completely rewritten. That is a matter of normal editing, not deletion.  Despite appearances, we do not work in the manner of the infinite monkeys - writing endless articles at random and then sifting out the ones which have achieved perfection.  Instead, our editing policy is to work by steady increments, slowly working towards a good result but preserving the contributions of those who helped along the way.  This is both courteous and scholarly, providing a comprehensive history of the article's development. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Treasury Tag, is there a particular reason why you feel the article history should be deleted?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  17:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * <Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear. I think that the article is so completely unacceptable, that just editing it into being good is insufficient. It would need to be completely rewritten - someone would have to sit down, say... "Mexican-American War, I'll research the background to that and find sources," not say, "How can I fiddle around with this already-written paragraph to modify out the synthesis?" Since, therefore, the contributions of all these people would be irrelevant, and the page is completely different to how it was before, I think it should be deleted and re-done from scratch, without a template, since the template is so poor. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is no longer the article that you nominated and work has already commenced. Please save us further discussion and withdraw.  You will be free to return at a later date to see what has become of the article.  Or you might even contribute to achieve your preferred form. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're trying to do, and withdraw accordingly (I'm not 100% familiar with the template/withdrawal mechanism, could someone else do that, please?). However, I will return and take a look, and intend to nominate again if it's not improved significantly, as I stand by my statement(s) that it is terminally synthetic. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, I can. Thanks to all involved for working towards what I think is an excellent consensus.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:47, 25 March 2009 (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.