Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raider (piracy)


 * 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   delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Raider (piracy)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially for made-up definitions and "facts". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Keep but substantially re-purpose. I don't think the term is "made up", I just think the article is contextually incorrect. There are plenty of references for raiders (in the piratical sense) employed by the Confederacy during the American Civil War (like this, this and this) but most reference a "Confederate Navy" or "pirate-like" raiders as distinct from an activity associated with The Golden Age of Piracy and the like (which is where the article sits with references to "plunder"). These were far more military-minded groups under the direct command of military personnel. We already have Quantrill's Raiders which covers a particular group of such raider/pirates under a particular commander. As it stands, the article is pretty bogus and the nominator was right to bring it here. But I'm happy to adopt it and do what needs to be done. Stalwart 111  05:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. Confederate Navy raiders were not pirates, nor were land-based units. Plus we already have Commerce raiding. The current title and contents are useless. Anything useful would have to be built from the ground up anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - don't disagree with most of that. We also have Confederate States Navy which could probably be expanded too. We're probably more accurately looking at a WP:TNT situation but I'm happy to do the work to start from scratch. I think the tactics used and the prior use during the War of Independence probably give us enough for an article. Quantrill's were certainly not "pirates" in any real sense of the word (being land-based). But the North certainly referred to Confederate raiders as "pirates" - it's just a question of whether we should make the same distinction and also cover the non-Confederate WoI "raider" history too. I think there's a space for it but I'm happy to discuss it. Stalwart 111  05:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Worth pointing out, too, that Commerce raiding refers to commerce raiders hired by the Confederacy as being distinct from privateers, though sources suggest both privateer raiders and naval commerce raiders were employed. It would be the former that I would see being covered by this title as Commerce raiding covers the latter. Stalwart 111  05:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've had a bit of a play around with the text of the article and have added some stuff that I could find in reliable sources. Having done some work, I'm probably at weak keep. There's definitely a distinction, I think, between the commerce raiders aiming to work within the Declaration of Paris and the piratical raiders hijacking ships and using them for other purposes (an act of piracy in the traditional sense). But where I've got the article at now is a bit WP:SYNTH and it's not all that great. I can promise further work but I won't fight to the death to keep it. Stalwart 111  08:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The article doesn't really take us beyond the dictionary definition "a person who raids." Of course raids can be done by pirates and other criminals, irregular and regular military forces, as well as by the police, and others. Historical types of raiders should have their own articles, as well as notable individual raiders.  However I don't see a need for an overall article on all types of raiders, or even pirate raiders.  If a pirate didn't raid he really wouldn't be a pirate.  We already have the articles Raid and Piracy. Borock (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak Keep  Everything here is basically covered in the pirate article.
 * Delete - Borock puts it well. This term is used mainly as a synonym for privateer and/or pirate - the terms and the articles are essentially the same thing, so no need to have another article on it; redirect is useless because of disambig. Ansh666 01:49, 31 August 2013 (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.