Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War Wastage rates


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

War Wastage rates

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was created in rather poor shape two months ago, and has remained unimproved since. The statistics that are quoted are unsourced, and the title indicates that "wastage" (casualty) rates for all wars should be discussed. This, clearly, is a daunting task that is unlikely to occur. Rather, the article about any given war could include a section on casualty rates should a user care to add such information; but it seems unlikely that this article will ever contain the information the title intends. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete "War Wastage" doesn't even appear to be a correct term in the English language. We have List of battles by casualties, and everything in Category:War casualties. I don't see a List of wars by casualties which this could be, but isn't. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, wastage is the correct term in English. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not any more. It is at the least somewhat archaic, having not been in any form of regular use since prior to the second world war, and seems to refer variously to deaths, the sum of deaths and discharges from the services, and includes non-human losses. The correct term to refer to the current content of this article would be "casualty rate".--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Ugh. For one, it's wildly incomplete, and unlikely to ever be even close to comprehensive, since war had occurred since time immemorial, and very few have had casulaty rates well-recorded. The scope is not defined, and as with any other article that touches on casualties, the criteria must be very clear, and even then, the accounts a fraught with controversy. The whole thing is unreferenced, and what is there already smacks of OR (what defines "average" and "intense"?) and POV (are these just military rates, or are civillians included? What about other branches and service corps? How are these percentages defined?). Even the well-established List of battles by casualties is organized in a manner I can't really agree with. And then, even if this article was improved, it would be pretty close to redundant to the aforementioned list anyway. It seems like this article is not going to get improved even a fraction of what it would need to be kept, though if somebody wants to userfy it and put in the months to make it respectable, I would laud that kind of initiative.  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Horrible attempt at an article. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2011 (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.