Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military globalization


 * 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. Nose-count is pretty much split down the middle. I'm tempted to call this a clean keep for a couple of reasons. First, the nominator changed their own opinion to keep. Second, there was substantial cleanup during the course of the AfD, and last bunch of comments are to keep, which would hint at the post-cleanup version being acceptable. Still, for all that, I see enough uncertainty and disagreement here to call this NC. In general, I don't fret much about NC/Keep distinctions (since they both result in the article staying around). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Military globalization

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

100% WP:SYNTH original essay in support of an invented definition. While the term does exist it is defined not at all in this way. The article is impossible to clean-up simply because the very first definition is invented and the rest follows it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Opinion changed because artcicle changed: sourced correct def provided & I removed the rest as WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I inserted a non-invented definition. The article seems to fit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxaxax (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with David Held or NATO. Superficially an improvement, but can it be expanded to article length and quality? Irondome (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition I agree with the reservations as to the article's possible POV issues as put forward by Aoziwe (talk below. Irondome (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Based on the recent radical edit, the article is now suitable for expansion imo. I note World War is also linked in see also, eliminating one of my major objections with this article in it' formerr incarnation. Irondome (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Prune -- If a serious academic has coined this term, we should keep an article on it, as a philosophical or historiographical concept. However, the article then  becomes an essay on the subject.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - not an invented definition and clearly notable. E.g. see:, , , , , , , , . If you have a problem with the article edit it instead of deleting it. For instance add "citation needed" tags and/or create a subsection for the whole current article if it's entirely just one definition if multiple exist etc. In the worst case – if both the used references and the unused ones (e.g. the ones I linked above) require it – prune it to a single sentence. --Fixuture (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You joined this discussion after the lede was edited. OF course, the article is in a different state now. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * keep, after changing the lede, based on the sources. (I deleted the rest, which is still WP:SYNTH.  Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as stand alone or merge the term information with World War, otherwise still has synth problems as a stand alone article and reads like an incomplete essay. Kierzek (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain -- not yet convincing as a stand-alone article, but there are some valid arguments for keeping it and it's reasonably well sourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. As currently written, what this is all about? I do not understand. Is it about NATO? Then redirect to NATO. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as is because all the contents simply suggest a journal article, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into David Held as a section under his works, with redirect from current title to the section. A very brief search shows many references to globalisation of / and war, globalisation of military activity / industry, etc.  While this article seems AGF, it is very possibly very single POV on the broader concept.  Wikipedia would benefit from an article on the globalisation of war / military, but the current article seems to fall very very misleadingly short of the mark. (Keep if someone spends many hours researching and adding a lot more multi POV on the concept.) Aoziwe (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stub article, needing much further development, but a potentially important one. Disservice to both the topic and Held to merge into the latter. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Since I last looked at the article, a lot of ESSAY material has been pruned off it. The article has now been pared down to one on the concept.  If that is how reputable historians are analysing the subject, we ought to have articles on the subject.  I do not think this is properly classified as a stub: it is a complete (though brief) article.  It may be useful to provide it with a "see also" section for what have been suggested as merge targets.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Much of the essay quality has been pruned out of it, and the remainder is thoroughly sourced. I don't think this content can reasonably be covered at Globalization, so a separate, even if permanently short, article is appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2016 (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.