Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic offensive


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Strategic offensive

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

For all practical purposes, this is unverified and is probably original research. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 08:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Some small part might be salvaged for Wiktionary. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The topic probably deserves an article, but the text is way too WP:OR and appears unsalvageable. Nsk92 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete As it stands, this is half OR and half a dictionary definition. The subject is covered in the only slightly less crappy Offensive (military). -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the actual concept in Soviet Union military strategy, which is what the only source cited in this article is in fact discussing, is the theater-strategic operation (a.k.a. simply strategic operation). There are plenty of sources that discuss that, including ISBN 0714682004, ISBN 0714640778, ISBN 0870216759, and ISBN 0313277133.  A strategic offensive is simply a specialization of that (ISBN 0714682004 page 177), alongside the strategic defensive and the counteroffensive. Narson is wrong.  This isn't original research at all.  It is roughly in accordance with the aformentioned sources, including the one cited.  It could be a lot better.  But, then, it is just a stub.  There's scope for expansion here, and refactoring the article to discuss strategic operations, with summary style breakout sub-articles for strategic offensives and strategic defensives if the size eventually warrants them, is simply a matter of the use of the ordinary editing tools that every editor with an account has.  There's no need for an administrator to press a delete button.  But there is need for editors bringing articles to AFD to start looking at what the sources say before nominating articles. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: the article had citations but are those sources reliable? Alexius08 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a very long reach for a straw to base an rationale upon the notion that a work on the subject of military history and strategy that was written by David Glantz is not a reliable source. A quick trip to Google Scholar will show you that he's cited by others in his field, for starters.  The specific book cited in this article is cited by 13 others. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and if you'd like to make an article, I suggest making one on the Soviet art of operational warfare or strategic offensive or whatever. Something more specific, since this is about the Soviet's strategy specifically.  Glantz has written a lot about soviet warfare and strategy and having this as the general "strategic offensive" article would not work as it is specific to WW2 Soviets and more present day armies following the cold war.  Ok this rambled a bit I was just trying to get some ideas down in writing: bottom line, this article is more about one specific type of historical straegic offensive and any relevant information should be used in a new article about that. --Banime (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps merge with Strategic_operations_of_the_Red_Army_in_World_War_II or something similar? --Banime (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A highly encyclopedic topic. If the particular refs presently cited are not reliable enough for you, then select some more from the hundreds of military science textbooks and history books which have substantial coverage of this topic. Strategic offensive has long been distinguished from the tactical . Edison (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The issues with this article are the extent to which it's WP:OR; how closely it follows Glantz (for example, in the definition in the lead); and the extent to which undue weight is placed on Glantz and WWII. Absent sources it's difficult to judge. Mao, for instance, had an entirely different focus. He saw the strategic offensive as the opportunity to unleash the guerilla "strategic defensive" to create "strategic parity" (ie stalemate) before launching a "strategic counter-offensive". Robert E. Lee conducted many offensive-defensive operations which can be characterised as either strategic offensives or strategic defensives. Similarly, there's no discussion of tactical offensive or defensive operations and the part they play. That said, the expression is also jargon so it needs explanation in context. Perhaps the solution is to create a new article Military defensive and offensive strategies, embracing all these concepts, of which a cut-down version of this could be a part. Again, if this finds support, I'll write it. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge what can be merged with/into Offensive (military). I agree that the article in its current form violates wp:OR. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 19:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep along with the similar articles. Generalize and expand. That this is just a beginning is no reason to delete it, quite the opposite. There are thousands of print references from the Romans on down:see  [http:/http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Strategic+offensive&qt=results_page] for just some books. Some other than Glantz, from a variety of conflicts" Knight, M. (1989). Strategic offensive air operations. London: Brassey's.; Wegener, E. (1975). The Soviet naval offensive: an examination of the strategic role of Soviet naval forces in the East-West conflict. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.; Webster, C. K., & Frankland, N. (1961). The strategic air offensive against Germany, 1939-1945.  London: H.M. Stationery Off.; Messenger, C. (1984). "Bomber" Harris and the strategic bombing offensive, 1939-1945. New York: St. Martin's Press.; DGG (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * More or less the same content, also effectively unsourced, by the same editor (though with some inexplicable but very significant differences) appears already in Offensive (military). I don't personally have time to expand this article in the way you suggest: if I had, I would have done so. However, the sources I have are radically different in their definitions and emphases: I do not see how one generalizes such a specific subject. From a purely practical point of view, it is much better to consolidate closely related unsourced shards into central articles, where they can updated en masse, easily watchlisted (for quality control), and provide supporting context for each other. This way, they can be broken back out again later once they've improved enough. The problem with leaving unsourced material flying around the ether is that it misinforms an awful lot of people while we wait for the longed for improvement. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 01:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, per DGG. --Tavrian 01:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: My main issue is that to make this sufficiently general would entail turning it into a dictdef, but if its specific then readers won't get the best picture. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If it's generalized what distinguishes it from a non-strategical offensive? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Edison, DGG. Notable concept and sources do exist. Edward321 (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is about a type of military offensive and I see no reason to be nominated for deletion, especially considering that it is referenced. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Offensive (military) later if the "Offensive (military)" article starts to become too large (reach 32K limit) then this can be spun out as a separate topic with just a summary paragraph in the main article, but for the moment a section in Offensive (military) would cover the topic if the unsourced statements are removed from this article and that content is merged into "Offensive (military)". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Philip Baird Shearer. Buckshot06(prof) 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I thought it was a Soviet term? Merge to offensive, perhaps... I don't see how this differs. But make sure it's a merge, not just a redirect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:36, 12 October 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.