Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murphy's laws of combat


 * 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. Essjay  ( Talk )  09:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Murphy's laws of combat

 * — (View AfD)

Prod was removed. My original rationale read "Joke page. And pretty unfunnny too." I never imagined the prod would actually be contested but it was and the opposing rationale was "merge with Murphy's Law". I guess I could be bold and redirect the page but I think it's important that the page be deleted and salted. We are writing an encyclopedia and 99% of people here remember this but this kind of page makes Wikipedia look less like an encyclopedia and more like a bad repository of popular culture. Clearly this article violates a number of core policies like WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR. More importantly, it degrades the overall image of Wikipedia as a serious project. Note that Murphy's Law already struggles to stay encyclopedic (since people keep adding their own oh-so-funny examples so merging should certainly not be an option. Pascal.Tesson 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge - A contrast of the original Murphy's law canon with this military-inspired variant would be beneficial to the Murphy's law article, as to provide context with it's impact on people in various walks of life. Merely because the article itself is humorous in nature does not mean it is not notable or important. PumeleonT 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I disagree with you both - Pascal, it Is notable, lots of google hits, and apparently its mentioned in Apocalypse now, it is therefore verifiable, and im not sure which WP:NOT rule it violates. Pumeleon, why merge it with Murphy's law? They're only related by name, very different content. I say keep with its own page. Thedreamdied 00:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I say merge because it is an extension of the original Murphy's law. Beyond that, it is born of the same humorously nihilistic attitude, and therefore related. However, I advise against a keep, as it is merely a list of humourous sayings. PumeleonT 01:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * delete no sources. If a reliable source cannot be found (which seems unlikely) then delete as WP:OR. Pete.Hurd 00:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge as a descriptive subsection (NOT the whole list) to Murphy's Law. This is not really a set or established list of humorous aphorisms. It's a particular style or format of humour which is based on coming up with variants of the logic of Murphy's Law - which itself apparently originated in the United States Air Force. These style can be found in many areas outside the military as well. I think there are enough references to this in military books to warrant a subsection in the Murphy's Law article that describes the phenomenon. However, Wikipedia is not a funny email or aphorism archive so I don't think an article just on the list is appropriate. Bwithh 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Took a look at the Murphy's Law article - its not in good shape and needs cleanup - there's this large original research section for instance. I'll try to work on it some later. Bwithh 01:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I quote from my entry on the Murphy's law talk page: "I know the proposed article is large, but taking notable examples from it (Such as 'Friendly fire isn't friendly') and discussing it in context with Murphy's law canon would not make the article too large." PumeleonT 01:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you just need a couple of illustrative examples (I don't see any which are particularly more notable than the others.. so I would select ones which reflect the historical period they come from) from the Gulf War ( The friendly fire one would date from this period correction, the phrase "friendly fire" apparently goes back at least to WWII) and from Vietnam (if a couple were cited in Apocalypse Now and can be sourced, use those or there's "Body count math is 2 VC + 1 NVA + 1 water buffalo = 37 KIA" which is not on the article list - but then the article list is not a master list or anything) and that's it. The length issue of the Murphy's Law article really stems from the original research section Bwithh 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This sounds like some OR by some guys around a water cooler. (But I'm quite willing to be proven wrong with a good reference!) WVhybrid 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See links 2 and 3 in my main comment above Bwithh 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant references in the article. It is still without any. WVhybrid 18:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bwithh 22:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Murpy's Law. Add external link to the Murphy's Law page, do not merge full content. -- Infrogmation 15:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge any un-OR to Murphy's Law. Just H 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. What is the problem here? Yes it is unsourced, but if we deleted all the unsourced articles we'd be hella smaller, the solution is to tag it as unsourced or source it. Does anyone believe that the author of this article just made these up? Of course not, I've heard several of them. So it's not like it's not true; it's not like these sayings aren't extant in the military; it's just a matter of finding a good source. Herostratus 18:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I would recommend that this be kept in some form. It is relatively rare on line.  Although it may not seem funny to some, soldiers get the joke.  It grows from time to time, as new events occur to the unsuspecting.  If sourcing is a problem, I'll pull the original list that I was given in the early 1990's as a source.  Jimjim401 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not relatively rare online, and even if it were, Wikipedia is not a humour archive Bwithh 22:18, 22 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.