Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unnecessary war


 * 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. An unnecessary sidetrack, but consensus is clear. Kubigula (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary war

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no there there. Contains only a list of "unnecessary wars", and a list of "See also" entries, most of which would be inappropriate even if there were an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase that. Not only is there nothing of interest in the present article, I can't imagine an encylopedic article being written.  Even a definition would be problematic.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has been greatly expanded, but with nothing related to the topic. I do ask those who have !voted to consider whether the changes would affect their decision or reasoning.  It doesn't affect mine.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having served in Afghanistan for a year, it's hard to think of a more notable topic.  --Xerographica (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the topic wasn't notable; I said that there is not and is not likely to be anything in reliable sources about the topic, as opposed to about individual wars (necessary, or not). — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article? --Xerographica (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What sources? The material in the article consists only of an unsourced quasi-definition, a list of wars said to be unnecessary, a "See also" section (mostly irrelevant).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the sources in the "References" section. It's the section immediately after the "See also" section.  --Xerographica (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In context, I should only need to look at them to see if they support the lead. Whether or not they do, the lead doesn't have anything which can be supported, or would support the existence of an article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is a classic example of Citation overkill. None of the claimed "references", with the exception of this one (and possibly another which requires subscription), are actually focused on the term. The rest just used it as a descriptive phrase in normal language, not differently from how a food columnist may call a place a "good restaurant". As such, those refs do nothing to support the existence of the article as a distinct concept. On the other hand, Unused highway, which seems equally absurd as an article, was previously kept. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please help me understand why so many people think that Wikipedia is a dictionary? Because according to core policy...it's really not. --Xerographica (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't quite understand your query. Where did anyone say that this article should be a dictionary definition? It currently seems pretty much like one though, as it lacks in-depth analysis of the concept citable to reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do below, several hours after this exchange. This stub is in the form of a dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an interesting case. This reads like original content and aren't any sources directly about this topic. It's a bit like an ESSAY as well. Vaca  tion  9  12:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not surprising. In his time here, Xerographica has racked up a long record of "articles" that are basically original research and synthesis, often presenting them more as essays than anything else. If you try to call him on it, he says you're an ignorant amateur and should shut up. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's be fair. 1. The merits of this discussion turn on the value/merits/whatever of this article, not the original contributor or his behavior. 2. His recent comments on talk pages have been quite civil. He may even qualify for a Barnstar in this regard. – S. Rich (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This article does not meet WP:SAA. it is hard to see how this could be anything other than "advocacy and controversial material". Each of the entries is someone's opinion that particular wars were unnecessary. And then the list would go on and on and on. (Too bad we do not see Pig War listed.) To balance the article, other peoples' opinions would have to be added to say "no -- that war was necessary." If the article is intended to talk about war as an unnecessary event in general, then pacifism and anti-war are available to cover the subject. It won't work to say "'Unnecessary war' is a concept that should have its' own article -- look at the RS that use the term." They only use the term because the RS is advocating their views about those particular wars, and not about unnecessary war as an overall concept.--S. Rich (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No encycloped value, is this some kind of philosophical or motivational poster. Eduemoni↑talk↓  14:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's easy to argue all wars are unnecessary; or that every war is necessary. This article would never be able to be neutral (the title itself already marks it out on a specific side) either. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Also a classic example of my own Timbo's Rule No. 14: "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." Carrite (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  I will state though that philosophers have for centuries been debating the question of what constitutes a "just war", and conversely, what makes some wars "unjust" or "unnecessary".  A rewritten article referencing prominent philosophers discussing this topic could be encyclopedic and satisfy WP:NPOV.  However, just war theory already covers this subject reasonably well, so introducing an overview of this philosophical debate into the article in question would simply be redundant.  Moreover, my Google searches do not suggest that "unnecessary war" has become a widely adopted phrase, so I don't see the need for a redirect to just war theory. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Please, I beg of you folks. Please, please, please, please learn enough about economics in order to make an informed decision on the topic.  Otherwise, you're simply doing me, and the readers, a huge disservice.  Please see the talk page for my explanation of basic public economics.  Thanks.  --Xerographica (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is not one of economics or government spending or even the wisdom of various government policies. This discussion is about a particular article -- the problem with this article is that it can only serve as a soapbox.--S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Please look over the entry. I hastily added some relevant and useful content.  There's plenty more reliably sourced content that can be added.  Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice you said that. It doesn't affect my reasoning, but I also ask that those who have !voted to consider whether the changes affect their votes.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't affect my reasoning either. Some of the freshly added material in the section entitled "Opportunity costs of war" is, in my opinion, worth discussing from the standpoint of just war theory - which is precisely where it is best to discuss it.  In my view, it has still not been sufficiently demonstrated that the need for a separate article exists. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I posted on this talk page? It's the difference between philosophy and economics.  --Xerographica (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if you were to focus on the economic aspect of wars, you'd have to find some reliable sources to support your claim (for example case studies or research papers). Then find sources linking this to the phrase "unnecessary war". At the moment, I can only see opinion piece references describing wars as unnecessary. Funny  Pika! 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you dispute what I posted on this talk page? --Xerographica (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're trying to merge two distinct issues into one extremely subjective topic. I still can't see a verifiable link between the two. Funny  Pika! 02:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What are the two distinct issues? --Xerographica (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps philosophy and economics?--S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Xerographica, yes I did take a look at the Talk page to which you linked. The problem as I see it is this: Although the article could (conceivably) be rewritten to satisfy WP:NPOV, the subject matter just isn't sufficiently unique to warrant its existence as a separate article.  Some of the arguments made do touch on philosophy (e.g. value of human life).  The cost of conflict already discusses some of the economic arguments including the opportunity cost of war.  Indeed, cost of conflict would be a good merge destination for some of the material that has been recently added to the article, especially as cost of conflict already has its own subsection entitled "Opportunity Cost".   Other relevant articles like antiwar have already been mentioned.  Moreover, it also needs to be demonstrated that "unnecessary war" is an established idiom of economics, analogous to "just war" in the context of philosophy. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You bring up a lot of good points. Honestly I didn't even know that there was a cost of conflict article.  But there's an article for unused highway and bridge to nowhere...so it didn't seem that much of a stretch, given the numerous reliable sources that have covered the concept, for there to be an article on unnecessary war.  From the economic perspective...there's absolutely no difference between an unused highway, a bridge to nowhere and an unnecessary war.  It's simply where the government has supplied a greater amount of a public good than the public truly demands. This is a direct result of the preference revelation problem... User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation.  Can all this be covered in the cost of conflict article?  Sure...just like it can also be covered in the opportunity cost article...and in the article on the parable of the broken window.  But, from my perspective, based on a thorough review of public economics...User:Xerographica/Principles of taxation...this topic is certainly notable enough to warrant its own entry.  Unfortunately, it seems doomed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors who are not familiar with public economics.  So I moved it over to a subpage...User:Xerographica/Unnecessary_war.  You're certainly more than welcome to give me a hand developing it.  --Xerographica (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you know that some of the editors here are not economics majors, or experts in the field? "Unnecessary wars" is not an issue, in my eyes, that has ANYTHING to do with economics - to me, that title is to do with morals, and whether one perceives a war has removed a perceived oppression, or not. Any economical aspect in this article is a duplication of the opportunity cost and cost of conflict articles by default, and belongs there. Anything else will almost certainly violate WP:NPOV. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If an editor who has voted here was even remotely familiar with public economics then they would have replied to my post on this talk page with an informed comment. --Xerographica (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad assumption. You can't assume everyone will go to the talk page... Lukeno94 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You're arguing that in any given group of editors...there's going to be a reasonable amount who've read James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom?  I WISH!  No, your assumption is extremely far-fetched...while mine is based on a firm understanding that our society is based on a division of labor.  Isn't it a moot point though?  There's a clear consensus that this article should be deleted.  It's very unfortunate...but that's just how Wikipedia works...sometimes...too many times...User_talk:Bwilkins.  Personally, I think the solution is that, given that a division of labor increases productivity, the deletion review process should occur at the relevant projects. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how consensus works, and goodness knows that would be a disaster (take the MMA setup, for example...). As people pointed out on the talk page, that essay has absolutely no relevance to whether this article should be kept. And just one properly informed member would be enough to swing a consensus, which is based on policy-based arguments, not vote counts. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A firm understanding of policy is useless if somebody doesn't have an equally firm understanding of the topic in question. And clearly, based on a complete lack of counter-arguments on the talk page, nobody here has a firm understanding of public economics.  Therefore, the outcome of this AFD will simply reflect a lack of relevant knowledge.  --Xerographica (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it won't, and no, it doesn't. The thing you put on the talk page is borderline inappropriate, and is irrelevant to this deletion debate anyway. The fact you still fail to see is that this is a combination of two Wikipedia "sins": duplication of other topics, and it will be impossible for this not to violate WP:NPOV. You can make good judgements based on policy without knowledge of a field, as they're generally written well enough for an evaluation to be made. If you want to keep your information about the financial aspects of war, then by all means contribute to the appropriate articles, as, being blunt, this particular one belongs in the bin. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * An article should be deleted because it would be impossible for it not to violate WP:NPOV? LOL.  That's ridiculous.  Articles don't violate NPOV...editors do.  So basically you're saying that this article should be deleted because editors, such as yourself, would not be able to maintain a NPOV.  Is there something in the article that currently violates NPOV?  If there is...then DIY and correct the deficiency.  --Xerographica (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if you go over that last comment again you might realise that most people here are trying to correct that by advocating for its deletion. There are many issues on this page, so it would be easier just to delete then start over. I am not against this article in principle but it currently reads like an opinionated essay rather than an encyclopedic article, which may put off quite a few people. To summerise the main problems on this page:
 * The only useable content is currently a dictionary definition. The lead would have to be expanded to cover more analysis on the phrase for it to pass as an article.
 * Most of the sources on the page are biased ones. The phrase itself is not supported by any reliable sources. People will continue to debate whether the term is notable or original research until this happens.
 * The term "unnecessary" is contentious because there are many ways one can view it. The fact that it comes just before a list of recent American wars does not help it maintain a neutral point of view. Include more non-American/historical examples with why they were referred to as an "unnecessary war" to balance it out.
 * The addition of economics only serves to add more problems to the article rather than support it. The link between economics and "unnecessary war" is not obvious and should be explained. It is not that the majority of people here do not understand economics, but rather how economics relates to the term "unnecessary war".
 * Some links in the See also section may not directly relate to the subject and instead infer a point of view. Either explain their relevance in the article or replace them with more relevant links e.g. Cost of conflict and Just war theory
 * Try and improve the article addressing the above points. Funny  Pika! 17:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FunnyPika, those are all great and wonderful suggestions, and clearly it's not a mission impossible to build a neutral article on the subject of the main reasons why people perceive a war to be unnecessary. But somehow it strikes me wrong, and against the very idea of a collaborative project, for there to be the expectation for me to do all the heavy lifting of creating a half-way decent article.  Clearly the article is going to be deleted...so I moved it over to my subpage...User:Xerographica/Unnecessary_war.  You're more than welcome to post your suggestions on the talk page and, if you're so inclined, also more than welcome to make whatever contributions you see fit.  Thanks.  --Xerographica (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fed up of this, so won't continue the debate, but the majority of people here also agree that this would never be neutral... Lukeno94 (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Xerographic's pretensions of being an academic are funny, in that at least one of his pseudo-articles ostensibly on economics was nominated for deletion by an actual Harvard-educated professor of economics. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which pseudo-article was it? --Xerographica (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica, himself, has not made any pretense about being an academic. And comments in this regard are unfair. Furthermore, they detract from the topic at hand -- whether this article should be deleted. Let's drop this unnecessary and unhelpful PA.-- – S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Baloney -- about Xerographica's pretension of knowledge, the claim my statement is a personal attack, AND that it's "unnecessary and unhelpful". Xerographica has -- here and elsewhere -- proclaimed authoritative knowledge AND claimed implicitly and explicitly that others do not have said knowledge. This empty assertion of authority should be highlighted.
 * Which pseudo-article was it? I'll let you figure it out. More amusing was your attempt to lecture the aforementioned economics professor on his field during the AFD. --Calton | Talk 12:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the consensus is to delete this article (and I wish the discussion would close). But my point is that Xerographica has not claimed he is an academic. He only goes about saying he knows a lot of stuff. In any event, whether his statements are empty assertions of authority, here or in any discussion, does not matter much. Let's simply get this discussion over with. – S. Rich (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Calton, if there was any truth to your claim, then you would have absolutely no problem substantiating it by sharing the "psuedo-article" that you are referring to. --Xerographica (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have the slightest difficulty with backing up the simple truth of my claim -- and it is straightforwardly factual, so I'll expect your apology after you figure it out -- but perhaps you should be used to dodging proof of claims made (though in my case I have actual facts on my side). But given your crack research skills, it should be child's play, right? Further hint: it's at least TWO pseudo-articles which were nominated for deletion by an actual economist. Even among the pile of your WP:OR quote farms that you've had nuked, that should narrow it down, don't you think?
 * But I'll make you a deal: explain 1) where your authority as an economics expert derives; 2) your specific education in economics; 3) how you know, exactly, that this background outweighs all the editors you've proclaimed incompetent (and for which you've been blocked for proclaiming); 4) how you know what the other editors' backgrounds are. Do so, and I'll reveal the really simple fact you don't seem to be able to figure out.
 * And Srich32977, has both claimed to know things AND said that no one else is competent to discuss his edits. Including to you. Which is, you know, false. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Any "expertise" on my part derives from being interested enough in the articles I edit to actually read the relevant reliable sources. That's it.  It's really as simple as that.  But because I do make the effort to read what the RS's have to say about the topic...I can easily identify other editors who have not read what the RS's say about the topic.  Despite the fact that these other editors have never read a single RS on the topic...they still feel qualified to make substantial content cuts to the article.  That's a problem.
 * Why would I apologize if you actually substantiated your claim? That makes absolutely no sense.  Are you saying that I should apologize to this unknown economist for disagreeing with them?  LOL.  That's too funny.  --Xerographica (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would I apologize if you actually substantiated your claim? For your constant -- and pure imaginary -- implication that the simple (and easily checkable) claim is false and for your laziness in making that implication without even the slightest attempt to substantiate it by simply looking at a few user pages. And speaking of which...
 * I can easily identify other editors who have not read what the RS's say about the topic. Except that, given that the subject of one of your "identifications" and subsequent snotty lecturing was, in fact, the aforementioned Harvard-educated economics professor, I'd say your psychic powers aren't as reliable as you think they are. In other words, the answer to numbers 3 and 4 is "my imagination".
 * But thank you for clarifying: you've mistaken amateur reading for education,: that is, you've never actually tested in any real way what you think you know against what is actually known, which is a basic part of education. It's the sort of thing which leads to garage tinkerers thinking that they've invented perpetual motion machines, and to basic logic fails like this. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's your claim...so why should I have to be the one who substantiates it? The burden of proof is on you.  Once you provide your proof then I'll look it over and decide for myself whether there's any credibility to the editor's claim.  But what difference does it make if the editor truly is a Harvard-educated econ professor?  When it comes to content disputes...whether somebody is "right" or "wrong" should be determined by what the RS's have to say about the subject.  And thus far, really the only editor that I've interacted with who has shown any real interest in what the RS's have to say about the subject is Thomasmeeks...  Talk:Public_choice_theory.  Pretty much everybody else is far more interested in discussing their opinions on the subject.  --Xerographica (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a soapboxing essay on a topic that can never be neutral. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article doesn't even stick to its ostensible topic, but instead switches to editorializing in favor of tax choice (violating neutral point of view). If, somehow, this article manages to get kept, it needs to be revised to avoid systemic bias -- every war that this article suggests may have been an "unnecessary war" is a war that the United States engaged in during the last 65 years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny that. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see that the editor is putting a lot of effort to put this article into a encyclopedic format, lets give him/her a break, and see where it goes. So far it is lacking neutrality. It is a delicate subject, but I think that if the editor put some effort into it, I'd even sum up´my effort to the editor's. The subject is clearly notable, it needs to avoid any devise. Ed<b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 05:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete completely impossible to define. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - regardless of the effort puts in to this subject, or any canvassing going on in here, my vote still stands - as I stated, anyone can argue that all wars (not just war X) are unnecessary, whilst also anyone can state that all wars are indeed necessary. This article will also be highly unlikely to become neutral. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Buckshot; having an article with this topic is like having an article on 'bad books' or 'Unsuccessful politicans' - it's about a generic viewpoint, and not something which can ever be defined in a sensible or consistent manner. The fact that the article as written is an essay basically illustrates this problem. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Buckshot, Bushranger, and Nick-D. Intothatdarkness 15:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The nomination is correct. This article is irredeemable. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Soapboxing quote farm, padded with a bunch of irrelevant "See also" links. Trying to format it as an encyclopedia article makes it as actually encyclopedic in the same way that building a wooden framework would really get you a DC-3. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - obviously as a Quaker I consider this term redundant; obviously others would disagree with me. There is no way on earth a NPOV encyclopedia article on this subject could be written. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - silly article that will never be NPOV, whats next? Necessary war?--Staberinde (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, see WP:NOTESSAY or WP:NOTSOAPBOX.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a "Speedy" reason. Perhaps it should be.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Would the Opt Out of Iraq War Act have been neutral content for the unnecessary war article? --Xerographica (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Still no real indication that the war is/was "unnecessary" as a statement of fact.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete 100% SYNTH, OR, POV, and SOAPBOX. SPECIFICO  talk  01:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - maybe this should be closed as a Snow Delete? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the deletion arguments in fact illustrate uneasiness with the article's title, which indeed contains an implicit opinion. It should rather have been called "Necessity of War". This is indeed a notable philosophical issue that has been debated for millenia (Plato devoted a book to it). This article should contain a summary of various notable opinions on the issue. At most it should be renamed. The topic is adjacent to Bellum iustum but is distinct from it. Imperfection does not mean the debate does not exist. Alfy32 (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be a good argument for Delete. There's nothing in any revision of this article which should be there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Seven days have elapsed since this AfD was initiated. Dear non-involved administrator -- please close this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 5 February 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.