Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus, rewritten, etc.). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

List of the Great Boners of all time (now List of incidents famously considered great blunders)
This discussion thread has become very long and extremely difficult to sort out. In an effort to assist the admin who must eventually make this decision, I propose the use of a recap table. These tables are discouraged in all but the most extreme cases. I believe this thread has become sufficiently confusing to justify it. The purpose of the recap table is to allow users whose votes are unclear an opportunity to be more specific. The use of the recap table does not replace the obligation of the deciding admin to review all the cBold textomments and to interpret them appropriately. No attempt is made in the table to identify sockpuppets or to match the times of the votes to the then-current version of the article.

In addition to your vote and explanation below, please record your name in the table. For this to work, please keep all comments below. I've taken my best guess at the current opinions of the discussion participants. If I've listed anyone's vote incorrectly, please move it. Rossami (talk) 20:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate, this table is to be taken with particular caution, as many of the votes refer to a version of the article that has since a) been renamed and b) been re-written and c) tripled in size and d) totally changed character. Indeed these things happened because of those votes. Hence, please ignore the table and just keep the darn article :). Pcb21| Pete 21:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes
The content of this list is inherently subjective and the title needlessly flippant if not deliberately provocative. Mackensen (talk) 04:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that the majority of these votes refer to the old version of the article. The article has since been completely rewritten. The title is no longer provocative. The content has been changed to be neutral, significant, informative, and encyclopedic. The article is compliant with NPOV policies as stated in NPOV. Similar articles exist and have been proven encyclopedic after Vfd discussion--for example: List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever. - Pioneer-12 23:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "The content has been changed to be neutral, significant, informative, and encyclopedic" is merely your opinion. That's not an objective fact.  Moncrief 23:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * ....fine. But it is an opinion based on a careful reading of Wikipedia policy. I believe that it is an opinion conforming to both the letter and the spirit of the policy. - Pioneer-12 00:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: the page has been updated again and renamed again. This should (I think) fix any remaining objections. - Pioneer-12 16:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with List of military disasters. SV|t|add 07:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting idea, but the scope of the article is different. Not all disasters are due to blunders, and not all blunders are military disasters. By the way, if this article is deemed deletable, then that article will be have to be deleted too. - Incidentally, this article has much stricter criteria for inclusion then that one. - Pioneer-12 07:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally POV topic. "Boner" is an uncommon word for "blunder" or "mistake" even if we found a way somehow to make it non-POV. Really should be a speedy delete in my mind. Moncrief 04:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * No kidding...especailly since that's got a very different meaning at least in American slang. I was quite relieved when I saw what was actually in the article. Delete. Meelar (talk) 04:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) (Note: I have seen the rewrite and still think this is way too broad and nonencyclopedic. Delete.)
 * Delete: I think the title is hilarious, unfortunately I can't think of any way to call this a keep. - Stoph 04:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ron Jeremy. Delete. POV, not possible to complete list, very unfortunate title. android&harr;talk 04:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote change. android&harr;talk 02:16, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, no vote change. My vote will not change unless I explicitly change it myself. Consider this vote a delete vote for the current "revote" and any and all subsequent "revotes." This is getting ridiculous. android&harr;talk 15:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Many words have different meanings and this one was in common use in the USA 30-40 years ago. It is a great category. If we have to, let's move it to a new name: Blunders. I would readily change the name to keep the topic. --Blainster 04:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest we get around the fact that any list such as this will be POV? Moncrief 04:23, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your objections are quite valid as the article stands, but this is too important a topic to let die. See the Santayana quote on the article talk page: "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." --Blainster 08:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't solve the problem of the title being inherently POV, and the content being original research. Who decides which blunders were the greatest of all time? android&harr;talk 04:25, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oolon Colluphid. &#9786;  You didn't ask who decides what actually is a blunder. Uncle G 04:53, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
 * I can see this one is going down. I can't believe no one else sees the value in this. Of course there are others who have done this research. Rest assured it will be resurrected in an acceptable form in the future. --Blainster 08:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * People write books on "greatest" blunders. (I have ISBN 720522527716, I wish I'd never said that: Everlasting gaffes of the famous, in my hand right now.)  They aren't encyclopaedias; and their selection criteria are for amusement, rather than for informational, value and are highly biased and arbitrary. Uncle G 15:06, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
 * Keep in [present form subject to two provisos. The article should be edited in such a way as to make the association between each listed incident and the cited authority crystal-clear. One good way is the traditional research citation form: "(David Saul, 1998)" inline with the incident, with the full reference below. This will make it easier to monitor the article and prevent insertion of unsourced items, which is a real concern. For example, it was agreed to keep List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder on condition that every item be sourced; nevertheless, people continually add names without sources, or with assertions that sources exist ("so-and-so's bipolar affliction is well-documented in biographies, interviews, and liner notes). The second is that the article be watched and any unsourced entries be gently but firmly removed until sources are provided. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. This used to exist under the title "List of Flops" (or something similar), which was broken up into seperate lists for politics/military/whatever.  This is just redundant.  Merge what can be merged into the flops articles, and redirect/delete.  I've read Pioneer-12's arguments that this is different from flops, and I just don't agree.  It's cutting way too fine a line to start distinguishing between flops and blunders.  (Are we also going to start distinguishing those from bombs, chokes, failures, muffs, flubs, and plain old fashion mistakes?)  comment by Lifefeed who forgot to sign his/her vote
 * Delete. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! Feco 12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete. The content of this list overlaps greatly with other lists, particularly List of commercial failures, List of political flops.  I might suggest that List of military failures might be a good list to start from the content not covered elsewhere, but as it stands, the category is simply too broad. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

The following block of votes all refer to the old version of the article and the article has been renamed and completely rewritten to address these concerns. (See commentary section below.) It is asked that they be revoted in light of the new article. (If someone wants to leave their vote how it is, that's fine.) - Pioneer-12 06:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, if you want a revote, DELETE THE GODDAMN THING. --Carnildo 06:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No. That would be against the GFDL. The history must stand. - Pioneer-12 06:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, inherently POV, much like the "worst US president" list. Rhobite 04:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) Comment: Nobody is under an obligation to re-vote every time you change the page. My vote remains the same. Rhobite 06:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Feco 04:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 05:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV. Firebug 05:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic -- Egil 05:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Certainly much improved. This article belongs somewhere, though not necessarily in Wikipedia. I am very concerned as to how it can be made NPOV. At the very least, we need to require citations for all entries and come up with a rule, as we did for example at Republican/Democrat In Name Only, as to what constitutes adequate citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV and original research. --Carnildo 06:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's deliberately trying to be an innuendo. And failing. Mo0 [ talk ] 06:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks a whole lot better, and the innuendo is gone. Mo0 [ talk ] 03:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete inherently POV. When Time Magazine did an Internet poll for "worst idea of the 20th century," thousands of anti-Israel people organized a campaign for the Balfour Doctrine. We could expect similar political battles with this topic. Mwalcoff 08:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Irredemably POV, not encyclopedic. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 09:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand Add '2004 the creation of this list' - only kidding, (but I might not be - it's as legitimate a POV as any of the other entries) it shows how subjective it is - delete--Doc Glasgow 09:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - definitely provocative title, definitely POV and definitely potential POV-pusher magnet. There may be some sense in writing about famous failures or something like that but I do not think that Wikipedia needs streed cred vocabulary for that - the term "failure" or maybe blunder is enough. As long as we can agree on what constitutes a failure (beyond "did not work as expected or planned") - Skysmith 10:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 10:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN, funny as hell. Great Boners, lol. Grue 19:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! Feco 12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete inherently POV. Thryduulf 08:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten and retitled version if it is realistically expandable. Thryduulf 01:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rename. Compare List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever. If we have a list of (what some consider to be) greatest movies we should have a list of (what some consider to be) greatest boners. It's just a matter of a more precise name. Honestly, how many people would be clamoring for deletion if it was called "Great Blunders of all time"? The title may shock some people at first but potential offensiveness is not grounds for deletion--Wikipedia is not required to be nonoffensive. It's sad and disappointing that most people can't get past their initial perceptions of the name and look at the actual content of the article. - Pioneer-12 20:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's the inhereent and unavoidable POVness of the topic rather than the trying-to-be-funny title that are the cause of the page of Delete votes here. Moncrief 20:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia regularly lists opinions and states that they are opinions. In fact, it is Wikipedia policy to do so. The article just must be careful to indicate that these are subjective opinions and also opinions of significance. (See NPOV.) Notice how the movie list has criteria for inclusion to make sure that only reasonably famous claims are listed. A similar method can be done here. The list of blunders is grounded in fact decause the negative outcomes are a matter of record; it is the quality of the decisions that led to those failures that people disagree on. We can list famous blunders and present both sides of the table so that people can get a multifaceted view of the event. (Which will counter the one-sided views presented in most lists of this type.) I think this article can evolve to become the best on this topic and one that Wikipedia will truly be proud of. - Pioneer-12 21:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Assuming you believe the above, why didn't you originally (a) name your article something that reflects that you are presenting opinion and not fact?; and (b) why did you use the word "boner"?  I actually see the value in the re-named article, but your insistence on using the word "boner" (despite its overwhelming semantic entailment to mean penile erecetion rather than blunder) makes me suspect your motives.  I edited the newly-titled article a bit.  I want to see if you change it back to the more POV/"boner" version or not before I consider changing my vote.  I also won't change my vote until the re-named article has "blunder" in the title rather than "failure."  Blunders and failures are not the same thing, and this article is about blunders.  Moncrief 21:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually prefer a title that is a combination of what Nickptar and Pcb21 have suggested: List of incidents that have been considered great blunders. A bit long, but precise. - Pioneer-12 22:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to List of incidents that have been considered the worst blunders ever or something less clumsy. Only the title and wording of the article are POV; the idea is good. Nickptar 20:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (Forgetting about the use of the word "boner" for the minute). There seems to be a whole stack of "inherently POV" votes. Are people's memories really so short. We have solved exactly this problem several times before. The movies solution is a case in point. The list should consist of things other people have called the greatest mistake, assuming a good number of these things exist. On the other point, "boner" is a terrible choice of word and would obviously have to go in the rename. Pcb21| Pete 20:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's easy to attach numbers to how good a movie is, and the "best movies of all time" article reflects that. It's harder to attach numbers to how bad a movie is, and the "worst movies of all time" article is notably lower-quality.  Once you move into the realm of general human affairs, how do you come up with any sort of objective criteria? --Carnildo 22:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Greatness" of movies is relatively easy to quantify compared to, er, bonerness of decisions. The list is just too wide in scope to be meaningful. Even without the unfortunate original name. FreplySpang (talk) 21:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) I've looked at the rewrite and my vote stands. FreplySpang (talk) 02:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I noticed that List of the Great Boners of all time has been moved to List of failures that have been considered the greatest ever. But the content has not changed, and thus I attached the latter to this VfD. I still think this material is POV and unsourced. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Saying "people think X", if people actually do, documentedly, think X, is not POV or unsourced. Calling them actual "failures" is still a POV title, though. I've been bold and moved to List of incidents considered great failures. Nickptar 22:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally opinionated Saopaulo1 21:41, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Further comment - I've done the relevant renaming and removal of source-free data points... thing is the list is now empty. I have found a couple of potential book sources but is a nightmare searching on the web for relevant terms... I urge those hoping to make an interesting little list out of this article yet to join and find some well-sourced blunders! Pcb21| Pete 22:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The list is no longer empty; I've added a couple of sourced entries. Hopefully their presence will inspire people to add more. - Pioneer-12 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The name has been changed and the article slightly expanded but the fundamental problems with this "list of" article still have not been addressed. Frankly, I don't think they can be addressed and still keep this an encyclopedia article.  Delete.  Rossami (talk) 05:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What "fundamental problems"? Every issue that has been raised has been solved. Name? Changed. Sources? Added. Criteria for inclusion in the list? Clearly stated. NPOV? Complaint with Wikipedia policy. I don't see how anyone could object to this article now. This baby is a future "Featured article" candidate. I think it's time for a revote. - Pioneer-12 23:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the new article, could be a good start to a referenced, encyclopedic blunder list. Grue 11:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to ensure this doesn't end up back in the Blunder article (see ) --Etimbo | Talk 14:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Such lists are generally wrong. This one is too stupid in addition. Pavel Vozenilek 20:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * After considering the changes, my vote stands unchanged. --Carnildo 23:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As does mine. This is still not encyclopedic. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 02:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to List of battles widely considered to be clear failures or somesuch. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 04:10, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but isn't the compilation and management of this list still entirely dependent on POV? Master Thief Garrett 06:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Only to the same extent that every article is dependent on POV. Pcb21| Pete 10:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article is inherently POV and is, in my opinion, not encyclopedic. I have to confess that I think the list of movies considered the greatest ever should be deleted on similar grounds. Rje 11:43, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that may be true, but a deletion attempt for it will similarly get you five pages of argument... BUT, I should add, if this gets the cut then the greatest movies ever article MUST ALSO go so as to be fair, along with any similar ones. We cannot mercilessly kill some POV "all-time-great" lists but allow some others to remain. So *if* this is deleted then you should start a deletion poll for that (as soon as possible) and cite this discussion as a source/reason/etc.
 * The movie list is even more potentially damnable, as every person has their own opinion of the movie greats, and every person thinks one or two of the supposed "greats" sucked. And we undoubtedly have some users/visitors who would (perhaps subtly) reword bits so as to make their favourites "better" and the ones they hate less important. Master Thief Garrett 11:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm, the fundamental point about the movie article (and Wikipedia in general) is citability. Pcb21| Pete 12:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, I now formally cast my vote. Master Thief Garrett 11:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have several lists of flops, see Category:Flops and the two items currently in this article were already tried once and deleted as too subjective and POV. More comments below. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Changing vote, see above. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * With regard to lists, all of them are controversial because on the one hand (bad) they tend to be a form of original research, and they tend to be based directly on the opinions of the editors who are involved; on the other hand (good) the better lists are consensus opinions of knowledgeable editors. The de facto behavior seems to be that we do keep "good" lists where the list has enough research and work in it to seems reliable, not totally subjective, and interesting. IMHO this one doesn't.
 * Another de facto criterion is that Wikipedians prefer lists for which there is some more-or-less objective criterion for inclusion&mdash;so that different editors have a better chance of agreeing on which items belong&mdash;and lists where the criterion is clean enough that one can at least fantasize that the list could someday be "complete" and guess at the total number of items a complete list would eventually include. Lists that would never include more than 5 entries are silly, and so are lists that would include more than 1000.
 * IMHO this list has no clear criteria for inclusion and is essentially open-ended.
 * IMHO the best chance of making this article encyclopedic would be to make it a compilation of the opinions of at least three list-of-flops or more authoritative books books. For example, restrict it to being a list of military blunders and have the article give an identifying description of each blunder followed by brief identifications of the books that call it a blunder, with appropriate short quotations. E.g. "Maginot line: XYZ calls it 'the stupidest French blunder of WWII' but PQR claims that it was really a big success because so-and-so-and-so..." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining your concerns. However, none of them is a valid reason for deletion of this article.


 * (1) First of all, ! Good suggestion ! The criteria for inclusion have been updated to reflect what you have suggested. An item will have to appear in a list of blunders by a respected authority in order to qualify for inclusion on the list. This should: (1) make determination of fame/notability ultraprecise and unequivically objective, (2) make the list confirmably "completable", (3) stop silly arguments on what qualifies to be on the list before they begin, and (4) make everybody happy.


 * (2) The list is not "original research". No original research says "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". This article is simply reproducing published research. We're not going out and conducting interviews or doing experiments to get information for the article. We are merely combining information from existing sources. Every Wikipedia article does this. If we couldn't do this then you'd have to delete every single article on Wikipedia. Also, "Moreover, it is essential that any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data come from a secondary source that is available to readers." That's what we are doing! The evaluation and analysis of the so-called blunders come from secondary sources which are cited.


 * (3) Yes, it's currently a stub, but we're supposed to expand stubs, not delete them. This article has tremendous potential. if it is given a chance to expand. - Pioneer-12 15:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep the list as it is currently rewritten has a good potential to become an interesting resource. Its certainly a topic worthy of discussion, and it has been the subject of several books. The article title is stupid, it should probably be "List of historical blunders", but regardless of title the idea is very valid imo. ALKIVAR &trade; 09:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 *  Delete . Redundant with the already existing List of military disasters and others. --cesarb 14:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A disaster is not the same thing as a blunder. A disaster is a bad event; a blunder is a bad decision. They are two distinct, if sometimes overlapping, categories. A military disaster could be due to bad weather, a brilliant move on the part of the enemy, general lack of ability, or simply the presense of an overwhelming enemy force. For example, the French forces at the Battle of Agincourt couldn't maneuver properly due to the muddy conditions, and they lacked a weapon with the range of the English longbow. There were two major reasons for the defeat, yet neither of these reasons were blunders. - Pioneer-12 15:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You convinced me that the overlap is just partial, and the list seems to keep getting better every time I look at it. Changing to keep, and I pity the poor soul who will do the closing of this VfD. --cesarb 21:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thinking better, delete as per User:Meelar on the other page. --cesarb 22:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep in its current form. --SPUI (talk) 00:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Stoph 02:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inevitably POV. Listing a budget vote in the senate and a campaign appearance (both coincidentally by two members of one U.S. political party) together with military slaughters demonstrates the problem. -Willmcw 08:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. In its current form, the article is a well-sourced neutral POV summary of critical opinions on an interesting topic. --Jacobw 09:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I think that Pioneer12 has inadvertently clouded the issue through his, erm, non-traditional approach to revoting. Needless to say that should NOT be considered when deciding whether to keep or delete the article. Pioneer12, I know you didn't mean any harm, and you've clearly learned your lesson--but for future reference, if you rewrite an article up for VFD, a good approach is to send a note to each person who voted via their talk page, politely letting them know you've rewritten the article, and inviting them to reconsider their vote. I've found this to be a very effective method. (You need to contact each voter directly, because most people don't monitor the VFD pages where they've already cast their votes.  --Jacobw 09:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has a reasonably NPOV title and a reasonable NPOV content. Reasonably useful as well. Sjakkalle 12:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete too difficult to verify, uninformative. &mdash;Wahoofive (Talk) 16:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand new version. Or give it a try, at least - it might not work out. Vote updated in table as such. Nickptar 00:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pioneer12's obsessive behavior has certainly clouded the issue, but I find the article duplicative, NPOV, and sloppy. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not only is the list as-is pretty much inherently POV, all future edits will be as well. It looks like an endless running sore of reverts and adjudication - for a bit of trivia. --Dcfleck 12:22, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * keep 192.23.43. 65 11:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Does not appear useful, a magnet for POV content (see the political section). Weak delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep This is an interesting list and as long as the items in it are factually correct I see no harm in gathering trivia like this. Indeed I see good. This vote applies to a version (10 minutes before this time stamp) which from my POV is not POV. -- SGBailey 11:57, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * Delete. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! Feco 12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excellent article in its current form. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. When I first looked at it a few days ago, I didn't think it was saveable; but with the current title and the new content, it's looking quite good.  Antandrus 04:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep --AYArktos 01:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

COMMENTARY
Why this article is not POV.

I think I know where people are going wrong in their assessment of this article.

Inclusion on the list is based on fame. We have other lists of famous things. For example List of famous experiments. In fact the inclusion of anything in Wikipedia related to human activity is based on fame. Why do we have a listing for Thomas Edison and not for Joe Schmoe, even though Joe Schomoe might have invented a mousetrap in his garage? Because Edison is famous and Joe Schmoe isn't.

I think the misperceptions people are having is that "listing something on this list means that Wikipeida is saying 'X is a blunder' ". NO! Listing something on this list implies that it is famously considered to be a blunder. The list itself makes no verdict on the "blunderness" of the action. That is why the Maginot Line is listed even though many people feel that it was the overall strategy, not the Line itself, that was the blunder. The listing for Maginot Line indicates this, and many people who read the entry will go away thinking that Maginot Line itself was not a blunder after all.

The opinions listed are not those of the authors of the article, but rather those of historians and culture in general. Thus it is noted that the Maginot Line is "widely considered" to be a blunder, but it is also noted that many historians think differently. The opinions of the wiki-authors are not stated.

We list famous blunders on Wikipedia for the same reason we list famous "urban legends" and famous unproven theories on Wikipedia--not because they are objective truth, but because they are well known, and thus worthy of note.

- Pioneer-12 09:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You have a very good point there, but it's still very dangerous. Not as to the genuine contributors who will add things after researching, nono, but the other people who will come on and add obscure things, or things that didn't fail, or add Bush Jr.'s war in Iraq just because they hate Bush (leading to a five-page "did the war REALLY fail?!?" thread on the Discussion page) and so on. I can see you've thought out this idea, and it's a good idea too, but we must be very, very careful of opening POV loopholes. I hope you understand...
 * And, as it stands, currently the "Delete"s are winning. Master Thief Garrett 11:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I share your concerns. The war in Iraq is a good example. The war was clearly successful from a military point of view as it toppled Saddam with a very low casualty count for a war of that magnitude. I'm sure some people will try to claim "Nono, it was a blunder about weapons of mass destruction!" Let them make the claim. (They make the same sorts of claims all over wikipedia, so why not here?) If would have to pass a consensus of wiki editors to make it on to the article page. If it does, it will clearly be stated that this is a famous opinion, but a minority one. However, I think that not being listed in an non-political collection of blunders will disqualify it from the article page.


 * Hmmm, perhaps the page restrictions should be tightened to include only blunders that have made it on to respectable blunder lists. (As Dpbsmith suggested.) That would certainly keep the politically motivated crap off of the page.... and also stop most of the silly arguments before they are started. Any truly notable blunder will be in one of those lists anyway. So, ultimately, the page content will be unaffected. Ideally, the page should simply contain verifiable famous blunders (as it is now), but there is a childish minority that will try to abuse any wiki page or policy to promote their ideology. So we simply let respected authorities in the field determine fame/notability for us. Ingenious!


 * OK, if the page is changed to include only blunders discussed in significant lists of historical blunders (a number of lists are already mentioned on the page), will you vote to keep it? - Pioneer-12 14:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * (Oh, and the deletes are winning the battle, but the keeps will win the war. "What does not kill me only makes me stronger.")


 * To be quite honest, Pioneer 12, if you had originally started the article that exists now, with that sort of title and without trying to be cute/funny with the "boner" thing, then I do believe you would be able to keep your article. But you didn't go that route, so I guess you're right that you'll have to try again after this effort is deleted.  Live and learn, right?  Moncrief 16:51, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * It sounds as if you feel that the article has been revised to deal with your concerns. So does that mean you are changing your vote? Or would you simply nominate the article for Vfd again, claiming "previously deleted"? - Pioneer-12 23:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am NOT changing my vote. I will change my vote when I change my vote.  Moncrief 23:18, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, the joys of democracy. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it!" But, with any democracy, the majority rules. While I agree with your explanation, and that would certainly make the article much more viable and less vulnerable to POV than it is now, the problem is that if you recreate a page such as this *most* of the people who have voted here will merrily re-vote claiming this deletion as "proof". Master Thief Garrett 00:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if that's directed to me. What I would need before I could even begin to think about changing my vote is some kind of acknowledgment/remorse about the "boner" fiasco.  Moncrief 01:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's illogical. Then you are basing your opinion on an old version of the page and not the current version. We don't vote for a page based on what it was; we vote based on what it is and what it can be. Frankly, I am surprised that more people didn't see the inherent value in this subject from the get-go.


 * Why should I have apologize to you? This isn't about your opinions of me. This is about your opinions of the page. Apologizing or even asking for an apology makes it personal. It does not matter if you think I'm a genius or an idiot. What matters is what you think of the page as it is now. (Which is a collective work; I am but one contributor.) Is the current content acceptable or not?


 * At this point, it seems as if some are looking for excuses to justify deleting this page. A page should not be deleted unless a clear, logical, objective, consistent, policy-compliant reason is given for deleting it. I ask you to look at page now and base your opinion on the page as it stands now.


 * I really think all of the objections and discussion have helped make this a better page. I think everyone who initially objected should be proud to now vote keep and say "I helped turn a poor page into a great one." This page now has incredible potential for greatness and I thank you all. - Pioneer-12 05:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right. I myself *may* rethink my vote. Maybe. Master Thief Garrett 06:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Would it help you to know that you have changed my mind? Your statements convinced me that a strincter policy of inclusion could make the article better. - Pioneer-12 07:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

REVOTING
Please note that User:Pioneer-12 has been removing people's votes from this page. RickK 06:18, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * (I've moved this part of my above post here) Removing people's old votes and saying they should re-vote may cause some people to take unintentional offense as if you're exerting some sort of "power" over them. Master Thief Garrett 06:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not been removing people's votes from this page. I have merely been stating that they need to be revoted. Isn't there a simple Wikipedia policy about calling for a revote? - Pioneer-12 07:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No. --Carnildo 07:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? Nothing like "If the title of the page has changed and the content extensively rewritten to deal with objections and concerns, then it is possible to call for a revote. The revote must be seconded by one person who has changed their position on the article from Delete [old article] to Keep [revised version]. This prevents frivulous revotes." That just seems like common sense.


 * How does this sound? Revotes on Vfd. I would not propose a revote if I didn't think it was justified. Several users, including Moncrief, have suggested that the new, revised article will fare quite differently on the Vfd voting if the voting was started fresh. Now that I proposed this "new policy" I'll bet that someone is going to accuse me of trying to change policy for my own devices. Nonsense: I am just trying to define a policy that has not yet been defined. I am attempting to use common sense in good faith when the current policies are inadequate. But go ahead and accuse me of trying to warp policy if you want to. I've already been accused of deleting votes, so another false accusation isn't going to hurt much.


 * "Several users, including Moncrief, have suggested that the new, revised article will fare quite differently on the Vfd voting if the voting was started fresh." These were not my exact words, but I do believe that an article that wasn't trying to be locker-room funny with "boner" might have slipped past ever going to VfD in the first place.  Pioneer, I have never seen a user attempt to manipulate a voting page the way you have (adding sweeping statements about "the following votes" should all be revoted on, etc.  It is really distateful.   For the record, at this point I do NOT believe the revised article will fare any differently on Vfd.  It's still inherently POV.  You need to step back from the constant rationales why people need to change their votes and all the other attempts you're constantly pulling on here as you're close to crossing a line.   Moncrief 19:42, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I truly believe that the question of "Is this article worth keeping" can be setted much quicker and more peacefully with a revote. But if no one wants a revote, that's fine too. - Pioneer-12 08:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, heck. People will probably dispute the credibility of the revote anyway. Yadda yadda. Well, for what it's worth, there's the "how to do a revote" proposal for all to consider. I'm sure this isn't the first article which was put up for Vfd and completely rewritten during the process. In this situation, it seems reasonable to say "we need to take a fresh look at this". Oh, heck... I'm sure that there has to be some memory of previous instances where total rewrites have happened. Thus, precedents for this situation (and what happened) will be found eventually by some wise and experienced Wikipedian. - Pioneer-12 10:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * nonono, the problem is you culled their old votes BEFORE suggesting a re-vote. Now if you'd said "OK everyone, I've hurely rewritten it, could you please strike out your votes and re-vote" then that would be fine. It's considered quite rude to remove someone else's comments, and in the sense of you an editor altering deletion votes it does look quite like you are trying to pervert the flow of the voting just to retain your contributions to the article.
 * But I do believe that you should call a revote. The article is barely recognisable from its original form, and I DO think it warrants a revote! If you feel one is needed, then please call one, it's as simple as that! This is an e-democracy! I am sure at least some people will vote differently, and new ones may decide to vote to keep it. Master Thief Garrett 11:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are implying by saying I "culled" their old votes. I didn't remove anyone's votes or comments. I just put a heading above them saying "I think you should revote". Check the edit history. Maybe because I *MOVED* one vote people seem to think that I deleted votes? the edit of the moved vote


 * Yes, I call for a revote. You seem to know the proper procedure for doing that. Since you have more experience at this then I, could you please put the header in place or whatever needs to be done? If I do it, some people will perceive it as "founder of the article bias". You have a more verifiably neutral view. - Pioneer-12 12:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, actually I have no idea how to do it, but even so I'll read up and do it. As you said, it'll look less biased if I do it. Master Thief Garrett 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Precidents
One example of an article that was initially considered nonsense but was revised and kept:
 * Votes for deletion/Karafuto Prefecture - Look at the article now!

- Pioneer-12 11:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, you shouldn't flood this page with "reasons" because that might make people even more annoyed than they already are! Please just call a re-vote, as suggested. Master Thief Garrett 11:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Yeah, everyone just revote already. If you don't then I will be forced to flood this page with reasons that will annoy everyone, including myself. :-) - P12


 * Rename to "Greatest Boners of all time" or "All time Greatest boners". Sam Spade 18:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So do let us know if the revote happens on a different page. I want to be sure my vote for Delete is counted again. Moncrief 18:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Most assuredly someone here will be careful to Keep your vote to Delete, in order to Keep continuity. - Pioneer-12 19:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a spectacular mess this is. Keep and rename as Greatest boners of all time.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 19:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Finally someone who's read the story that started it all. The full version of that story is here: The Joker's Comedy of Errors, from 1951 (when phrases like "Merkle's Boner" were still in frequent use). - P12


 * The problem is *still* that most people think of "boner" with a dirty connotation... Master Thief Garrett 21:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep List of incidents famously considered great blunders in current form (ie this title and with references and further reading &c). Precedent at List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever and greatest ever. -- Lochaber 23:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! Feco 12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

REVOTE (DISPUTED)
A revote has been called. Please continue discussion at the new page, Votes for deletion/List of incidents famously considered great blunders. Your current votes WILL NOT COUNT there, you must re-vote. Master Thief Garrett 21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) This re-vote was erroneously called based on a policy invented on-the-fly by the main contributor and has caused a further dispute. Votes on the new page will not necessarily count. It is probably best to continue voting here, as some have called for deletion of the other voting page. Master Thief Garrett 23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, they'll count if the presiding admin decides they do. Delete this POV rubbish (Michael Dukakis in a big helmet and Varro? Please!) and censure the guy who thinks it's a good idea to make Wikipedians jump through hoops. Grace Note 23:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ugh... I... I really don't know. I've gone and made a whole heap of voters really ****ed off, and... and it's all his fault really, there's really no other way to put it, it is all his fault. I used that "policy" with the best of intentions, but he created it with intentions that are not quite so clear to me... when I read it he hadn't even used the nonpolicy tag... again, I am sorry... Master Thief Garrett 23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * He never used the tag. Look at the history; it was me who added the tag. You probably read the page in the 5 hours interval before I did it. --cesarb 00:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ...exactly... Master Thief Garrett 00:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And now, the bogus policy is itself on VfD: Votes for deletion/Revotes on Vfd. --cesarb 00:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please let the record state that Pioneer-12 has characterized his article as being "viciously attacked by deletionists" in comments soliciting votes for this page. I consider that a gross mischaracterization. Moncrief 04:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The was my old opinion. Now I see that the deletionist attitude is based on a desire to have an encyclopedia with the highest quality of information right now . A very honorable ideal. Several people who seem to share this belief of "consistent high quality articles, and high quality NOW" have made suggestions of how to keep the article high quality so that it does not degenerate into a "my blunder is bigger then yours" shouting contest. Their suggestions have been taken to heart, and it seems that a reasonable common ground has been found. I feel that the article is much better off after taking their concerns to heart. Now I believe that the initial negative backlash to the article was mainly due to petty anger on the part of a few and to a general lack of awareness of the intricacies of the NPOV policy. Let the record state that the deletionist faction was falsely accused. Ignorance was the real enemy all along. - Pioneer-12 10:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If this revote stands, *still* keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Deletion Wars - What would a Jedi do?
I wonder if Wikipedia is truly ready to handle a page of this nature. It's like placing a nuclear bomb in central park. Even though there are adults around supervising, there are also plenty of kids just dying to get their hands on it. Perhaps I was unwise to believe that understanding could be gained through discourse and discussion in such a short period of time. This whole discussion has just been one misunderstanding after another. One day, the community will understand the wisdom and power of this article; one day it may even be a featured article candidate, but that day may be a long time coming.

Delete this article if you must. It look as if there is sufficent minority support to block a delete by consensus, but that is for an administror to decide. History will record this as a dark time for the rebellion, but the forces of wisdom, logic, and understanding will one day return and strike back.

- Pioneer-12 04:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 'keep this please it seems reasonable Yuckfoo 00:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if Pioneer-12 isn't really Iasson, trying to create new deletion policy, insisting that it's his way or the highway, all very familiar. RickK 04:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt it. This isn't Iasson's style at all. --Carnildo 05:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Iasson would be calling into question the validity of the voting method, proposing several new polls with different rules (not just a revote), trying to define the validity of who could vote, etc. He would also have taken many more edits to make each point. Thryduulf 10:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not Iasson's style at all. Pioneer-12 is intentionally ironic and kids around a lot. I think he's trying to ease the sting of rejection. The reason I think this is that it is (cough) what I tend to do this myself. Unfortunately he doesn't realize that what seems like obvious irony is frequently misunderstood online. And also that we get a lot of people like Iasson, who make what seem like ironic jokes while being (I think) 100% dead serious. We have the [[image:ironyalert.gif]] irony alert tag that should be used when it is important to avoid misunderstanding. < [[image:ironyalert.gif]] Note: that last sentence of mine is a lame ironic joke because, in fact, the ironyalert image is extremely annoying and in reality should not be used at all. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page has been through a title change, content change and complete rewrite for style. Clearly a lot of hard work has gone into this article in the time it's been listed here.  Nevertheless, I still consider the concept for this article fundamentally flawed.  The selection of "greatest blunders" is too sweeping and too subjective to every be verifiable.  The citations to pop-history books written for their entertainment value do not (to me) qualify as adequate scholarly citations.  Further, I note that even the pop-history books stuck to a single topic and tried to find somewhat consistent criteria for inclusion.  This article has no such cohesive theme.  No change of vote.  This article is just vandal-bait.  Rossami (talk) 23:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! Feco 12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You may care to explain why you vote delete. To many of us, it seems to serve no purpose whatsoever except retaliate against the rather "enthustiastic" Pioneer-12. Pcb21| Pete 00:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, didn't he just explain it? What are all those words after "Delete"?  Who are the "many of us" that you're speaking for?  Moncrief 01:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Overly broad, inherently subjective, unmanageable.  Some aspects of this could be made into a separate list, such as "List of the great military blunders of all time".  Quale 06:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.