Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stryker Vehicle Controversy


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Stryker Vehicle Controversy
POV fork that has evolved in a pro vs con war over the subject PPGMD 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom PPGMD 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork. --Mmx1 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but needs improvement. This is not actually POV, it does handle both sides, but it's a pretty rough article overall. The controversy is non-trivial and there are reasonable critics of the vehicle's concept, execution, and mission, even though there's a very noisy unreasonable claque as well. My major concern with deletion is how this would fit back into the culture, as it were, of the main Stryker article. Is the split intended to create a ghetto for criticism? Would edit warring over merging this info back into the main article be disruptive? --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was edit warring and various non-notable entries that causes the POV fork. For example the old wheeled vs tracked debate has nothing to do with the Stryker and has no place in the main article, but in a POV fork there are less editors to look over the content. This isn't FAS or military equipment forum about 50% of the content (of both sides) would be have to be dropped to be encylopedic. PPGMD 23:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't understand what the problem with a look at the pros and cons of the issue within context of the design are. This has become a matter of serious debate within the US Armed Forces and has become a prime example of similar debates that are currently being engaged in around the world.  The Stryker contorversy is more formal because of congressional reports, mass media coverage, and various official responses from the military.  It needs to be discussed in more depth than was allowable under an encyclopedic entry dedicated to the vehicle, which is why I created the SVC page in the first place.  It was detracting from the Stryker page and had turned it into an edit war over this devisive issue.  Delete the SVC article and you'll watch the Stryker article degenerate right back into this.  There needs to be a dumping ground for this, and it shouldn't be on the Stryker page. -- Thatguy96 20:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Except an encylopedia is not the place for such a debate or discussion, it's a collection of facts. If it can't be fitted into the main article it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. PPGMD 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that all the "controversy" page is is a collection of facts. Its really not anything more than a collection of facts.  The pros and cons, and the history of the controversy. -- Thatguy96 23:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, article needs improvement, but better those changes be made there rather than on the actual Stryker article. --Edward Sandstig 21:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep I don't think it has very serious POV problems, but it need some serious tightning up. When that is done, I suspect it will be down to a length where it could safely be merged back into the main. Until then it's probably best not to delete it. Fornadan (t) 08:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this is a POV fork, the controversy content should be merged back into the article. Edit wars are not a reason for deletion, try protection first. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's too much content to be merged into the main article, I think a short summary which then links to the main article would be more appropriate. --Edward Sandstig 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, lists relevant facts about the vehicle, covering the actually existing controversy. Quality is not the best, but acceptable. Issue won't fit well into Stryker article. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not so much a fork as Just Too Much to leave in the main article. Needs cleanup, including adding the same Categories as currently on parent (Stryker) article. --Dennette 10:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep While born of the Stryker article, this page has grown to take on its own life. Since the US Army's top brass, the GAO, the US Congress, and the soldiers actually using this vehicle have all thoroughly reviewed it, liked it, and its still being bought and used, then there should not be as much controversy. However, there will always be those who disagree, but their detailed arguements should not be listed in the main article. Second, many other vehicles' performance capabilities (including the M2 Bradley, the M113, and the C130 aircraft) are being discussed in this article, and that should not appear in an encyclopedic article on the Stryker. Third, the Stryker is not the only military vehicle whose controversy has spun off into its own life. For example, the problems in the launching of the M2 Bradley eventually became an HBO movie.--Vstr 13:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will say I'm surprised that people have so much invested in this controversy, and yet the V-22 Osprey, not so much. --Dhartung | Talk 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would venture to say its because there is a serious debate about the benefits of a Stryker type system in the field. The V-22 represents a universally accepted capability enhancement.  The major issue with the V-22 was whether it was worth dumping so much into it if they couldn't get it to work.  Now that they essentially have, people are glad to see it start being deployed more or less on the whole. -- Thatguy96 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge back with the original Stryker article It's funny that because there was so many criticisms of the Stryker vehicle on the Stryker article, the criticisms had to be moved to it's own article. Then once it gets moved to it's own artice it becomes a POV issue (something that wasn't so much of an issue when it was part of the Stryker article because both sides were represented.)  So some people don't want the criticisms at the Stryker article, and don't want it on it's own article either.  Could it be that there are people who just don't want these criticisms being published?  They are valid criticisms nonetheless.  So far I'm seeing 7-2 Keep. -- 24.118.89.238 4 Sept, 2006


 * Keep Notable and well-referenced article describing the debate surrounding the adoption of the vehicle and the advantages and disadvantages of it. Hrimfaxi 11:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP As an Iraq war veteran, I can attest that these criticisms are valid. Although I was never on a Stryker, I did play OPFOR against the 172d infantry (who uses strykers) at a JRTC rotation, and I know from experience that these things are a total waste of money.  Can't shoot on the move, large blind spots, no RPG protection, no off road capability, and it's too heavey to be carried by a C-130 (which was its original purpose).  I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm going to leave the editing to someone more experienced.  As you can tell, I'm pretty biased here.  But I'm only biased here because my fellow soldiers are dying because of this piece of shit.  Who even put this up for deletion?  Is silencing criticism "supporting the troops"?  Moron.  JohnLethal 01:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Asking for content to be merged into the main article is not "silencing criticism." PPGMD 01:59, 8 September 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.