Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of battles and other violent events by death toll


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep Nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

List of battles and other violent events by death toll
A n exceptional case involving an exceptionally huge number of violations of WP:V Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 02:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * STRIKING NOM as per agrement to userfy; waiting for admin to take care of details. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment as nominator Would gladly accept userfying as an alternative to deletion, but this page simply does not belong in main space yet. It is unsubstantiated to the point of being indistinguishable from a geocities personal website. I know that usually there's not much harm in a small number of violations of WP:V and usually we would just wanna address those problems one by one rather than the drastic step of WP:MFD&mdash;but this page has no redeeming verifiable, encyclopedic info of any kind. It does not have violations of WP:V; from top to bottom, it is one. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 02:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh PS, I brought one of the items listed on the page to FA: Battle of Red Cliffs. I spent weeks researching it. The casualty figures listed on the page MFD'd here are speculative, to use an extremely kind assessment. But NOTE the whole page is like this; fixing/removing Red Cliffs from the list would be placing a bandaid over a mortal wound. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - given that I created this page (as a split from another page) and have spent a considerable amount of time formatting it, I hope this nomination is merely coincidental and not a case of sour grapes over a recent dispute I had with Ling Nut over a submission of his at DYK (see our talk pages for further info). On the MFD itself however, issues of WP:V are better handled by improvement rather than deletion, particular given the amount of work it took to format the lists, and the amount of work it would therefore take to recreate the page. I note also that Ling Nut does not object to the topic itself but only to the alleged lack of verification. I don't know who added all the "citation needed" tags, but many of the estimates here would be taken from the underlying Wiki article, which in most cases should have references for their estimates. So at most I think this page might require some additional work to include those sources, along with perhaps a little pruning. Deletion would be a drastic and unwarranted step at this stage in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer to several points: I added all the fact tags. I am emphatically not sour grapes... I'm hoping you'll strike that comment... You cannot use Wikipedia articles as a source; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. No really. I'm not being facetious. I mean that by the definition of WP:RS... I appreciate all the hard work, but "I've worked hard" is a very good reason to userfy, but not a good reason to keep it in main space. I have some huge lists in my user space that I have not moved to main space for precisely this reason... uh... link to one here. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim that Wikipedia is a reliable source. I said that in many cases, you will probably find that the estimates on the page in question have been taken from other wikipedia pages where the estimates are themselves cited to reliable sources. Where that is not the case, it shouldn't be all that difficult to consult with the regular editors on the pages in question to get direct confirmation of estimates, or else to simply delete the entries that cannot be reliably sourced. Deletion of the entire page should be the last option, not the first. Gatoclass (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would, as I may have mentioned, gladly accept userfying as an alternative to deletion. It just doesn't belong out in mainspace, not when the whole thing is speculative and unsubstantiated. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if you feel that strongly about it, I suppose userfying would be a viable option. My opposition is to the deletion proposal. Gatoclass (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Heck, I'll even help you verify. Gladly. But be warned: a list that long will take weeks of continual improvement. Plus I'm allegedly supposed to be working on a dissertation, which apparently I am not. :/ Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, I think we can probably consider this MFD to be resolved in favour of userfying. Quite frankly, I think that userfying might help motivate me to do some more work on the page anyhow, which I haven't touched for months. Gatoclass (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We should follow the rules. I can't close this... but I'm striking my nom atop this page as per your agreement to userfy. An admin can close it. Sorry to have made you feel attacked (if you did). Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. For future reference: given that the page was in the article namespace, it should have been nominated at AfD, not MfD. List articles are still considered articles, not "miscellaneous pages".--Father Goose (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, wrong page buddy! You may have meant to go to WP:AFD. ViperSnake151 17:57, 18 July 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.