Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military incompetence


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Military incompetence

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

Appears to be pushing a book under the thin veneer of general, objective statements. (Fixed by Shimgray. ~ Jafet 14:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)) Does not cite third-party references or sources. Weaselling throughout. ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail 13:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not so much an encyclopedia article as it is a book review. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have checked earlier revisions before condemning this article. Keep per Shimgray and the comments below now. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How strange - someone wiped the existing article and replaced it with the review. I've reinstated the old article, which was unreferenced (mainly because I was doing it from memory without either book handy) but is at least more general and, I hope, a lot more informative... Shimgray | talk | 14:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is, incidentally, the second time I've had to save this article . I should keep a closer eye on it... Shimgray | talk | 14:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I believe anyone searching for this topic would find what they were looking for in List_of_incidents_famously_considered_great_blunders. --Banime (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In a redlink? ;-) In all seriousness, the article as it stands isn't much, but it is a valid topic; Dixon's book is odd, but it is indicative that there's secondary literature dealing with this as a subject. A catalogue of events is really not very useful (and, as this article used to be, a fleapit of edit-warring); an article on the concept can, hopefully, explain why the concept of specifically military incompetence is worth discussing beyond the normal ideas of organisational ineffectiveness. It certainly needs expanding - I'll put it on the to-do list - but we can certainly give the reader more than a list of mistakes with no context. Shimgray | talk | 16:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I meant this link here: List_of_incidents_famously_considered_great_blunders I edited it in the post above as well. --Banime (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And to address your comment, perhaps try to improve the article as much as you can and add citations and I can reconsider my position before the AfD is up. --Banime (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * An article can do this. An article can do that. This article has, unfortunately, been on the 'pedia for a few years now and nothing much has been made of it. I would welcome real improvements to the article, as would many other editors, but I would not expect any forthcoming. ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail 17:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as reliable sources exist: a whole book in fact (which I for one found extremely interesting). An explanation of the causes is hardly the same thing as a list of the effects.  Richard Pinch (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There is imcompetence everywhere, not just the military. The issues discussed in this article would be better in some larger article dealing with military decision making. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is very notable and there are hundreds of sources. Dixon's work is excellent and so is a good start point for the article.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is definitely notable. The fact that the article only covers a minute amount of the existing bibliography is no reason to delete it. Also, I agree with Richard Pinch that merely having a list of military blunders (in another article) is not the same as having a fully fleshed article. VG &#x260E; 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Military incompetence is a subject studied by the militaries, and is unlike many other fields of organisational failure because of the very many unique factors involved. The fact that it has a book which is similarly named is not really an issue, although it was definitely wrong to replace the article with a book review. A list of "blunders" is not same as professional and organisational incompetence. One can blunder into an ambush, but one does not blunder into a year's long campaign that can't be won. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This topic is the subject of many books, articles, etc. Dixon's book is regarded as a classic and often appears on the reading lists issued by militaries and appears to have inspired many similar works. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2008 (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.