Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of raids


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 03:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Reads well to me. Very useful. Are you nominating and voting "per nom"?--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Ineffable3000 04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep To my knowledge, this article already contains every raid on wikipedia. Even if somehow the number of raids on wikipedia quadrupled suddenly, or more, it would be very easy to just split off the raids into subsections by era, century, or major conflict. Lists are inherently pretty low maintenance, so there's no reason it couldn't be maintained as needed indefinitely. If you have any current issue with its state of maintenance, you need only place a cleanup tag and state what you wanted fixed. If it gets to a point where maintainability becomes an actual concern, I would suggest first using the cleanup tag to find out if people are willing and capable of cleaning it up. If not, then I might consider replacing it with a category.


 * Furthermore, it should be noted that there is no raid category, so, at the moment, there is no alternative source of this information. Even with a raid category, you don't get sorting by date which is much more useful for historical analysis than alphabetical sorting. If it were a list of pokemon, I could see a category being more appropriate. However, alphabetically sorted history is about as helpful as a dictionary sorted by the approximate order the words came into use. They are different kinds of categorization specialized for sorting different kinds of information. This isn't just theory either. For example, due to this method of sorting, I was able to spot two identical entries with different names, the Indian Ocean raid, and the Japanese Raids into Indian Ocean (I added the merger tags to them when I found out). If you put this information in alphabetical format as a category, it becomes more difficult to maintain, thereby making the problem worse. I don't think I can stress enough the importance of using the right type of categorization for the information you're sorting. -NorsemanII 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you define a raid? How is it different from a battle? If a category exists, a person can just visit the page of the raid to learn more about it. There are definitely many raids that are not included in this list. --Ineffable3000 05:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See Raid (military) and battle for definitions. The category is as useful as the search. If you're looking for something very specific, you don't even need the category, so there's no point bothering with it. If you're checking to see if your new raid article already exists under another name then this is much more useful than sorting through every entry manually. Likewise if you find a raid that isn't on the list yet. If you want to study the progression of raids, or possible influences that raids had on one another, this method of sorting is far more useful. Any time you want to place information into a historical context, particularly with reference to precedents, sorting chronologically makes the task much easier.


 * Edit: What raids are you referring to? -NorsemanII 05:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, never ending list, will be better if served as a category. Listcruft. Ter e nce Ong 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A category couldn't order the raids chronologically as this list does. Seems pretty maintainable to me. - Mgm|(talk) 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment the article is obviously encyclopaedic - "unmaintainable" is just code for delete for no reason - but the article is unsourced. That's problematic. WilyD 14:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Categorize This is a category and would be far easier to maintain as such. Please don't keep it the way it is. Xiner 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Please stop nominating every military-related list for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete arbitrary/indiscriminate/open-ended list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - raid is a very vague term. A list of raids is very ambigious. Also it is almost impossible to complete due to the enormous number of 'raids' that occured in human history. --Ineffable3000 22:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You're forgetting the notability requirements, which ensure that only the most important raids (which are well defined by their main article, Raid (military)) are in Wikipedia. --Hemlock Martinis 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep `'mikkanarxi 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ambiguous notion about incomparable things: such categories as raids of Mongols, raids of American Indians, air raids nave only english word "raid" in common, but these are quite different types of warfare. Mukadderat 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The definition of a raid found at raid (military) is what unifies those three types you listed: A raid is an attack into enemy territory for a specific purpose, with no intent to gain or hold terrain, and where the unit returns to friendly territory immediately after the attack.. All three of your examples fit into those parameters. --Hemlock Martinis 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - a very informative list and useful browsing aid on military history, which also serves as a timeline because it is sorted chronologically. Very good list.  Please don't delete quality lists like this.    Th e Tr ans hu man ist   11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Chronological lists are useful. User gives no reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, ditto RockMFR, no adequate reason is given for deletion. Considering that AfD's are kept by default unless concensus is achieved to delete it, the same should apply for deletion reasoning. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:56, 10 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.