Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruse of 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 keep. BJ^Talk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruse of war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has existed for four years largely in its present form without any references. A references tag was placed on it in April 2007, but still it has none. A nice essay perhaps, but unverified. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is unquestionably notable and being unreferenced is not a good reason to delete. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If being unreferenced is not a good reason for delete, then why do we bother with references? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons: one is that such a policy was explicitly rejected repeatedly by the community. The other, & the reason for that, is that articles grow, and we need to both attract a comprehensive range of articles and a wide range of contributors. Some of the classic academic topics have few workers here. Unless we want to devote WP mainly to the easily referenceable sports and politics and music, we need to let it develop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) Oct 4, 2008

Policy? How about the following policy tag?

This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.

As I said above, it's a nice essay. However, without references/cites it was simply an opinion piece, more suitable for a blog than an encyclopedia. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it has references and cites, will you reconsider your position? Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I wasn't anti the content, I was anti an article existing for four years without references, and more than a year without references after someone tagged it asking for references. Now that it has them it obviously will be kept, so mission accomplished. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Actually an intesting essay. However it discusses the "rules of war" without telling us where these rules come from, which leaves the reader dissatisfied. I think there must be other articles on WP dealing with these topics. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A very interesting article that has had sources added describing ruses of war from the US Civil War and both World Wars, accompanied by reliable and verifiable sources. Issues of the definitions of the rules of war should best be addressed by reference to that article and not duplicated here. Alansohn (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not because it is interesting or useful (which are defacto NON reasons to ever keep an article...hmm.) but because the topic itself is notable. It obviously needs work, but Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines, and that an article hasn't been edited in $x days/months/years shouldn't be used as a reason to delete an article. Tag as needed, but no fatal flaws and it is a notable topic, so you gotta keep. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An essay, as described above. But likely notable and no particular reason to delete (such as WP:COPYVIO or others). Vishnava _talk 00:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A major part of rules of war in the international law sense. Essentially any book on the overall subject is a general reference. This is a good place to collect the information. DGG (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a notable concept with several sourced examples in the article. Edward321 (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Pharmboy et al. -- Banjeboi 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per User: Vishnava Cristian Cappiello (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete wow so many keep votes on such a blatant essay? Wikipedia is NO PLACE for original research. The topic is hardly worthy of an article, as there wouldn't be much in it beyond a dictionary definition. Themfromspace (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It isn't "original research". I'm going to WP:AGF and assume this is a notable, if possibly dated, concept in international law, and that the article is simply missing some contextual information. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would like to see more context and history like the French version [1] but that's worth a flag, not a delete to me. Pohick2 (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.