- 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discussion regarding article content and potential improvements can continue on its talk page. North America1000 01:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- List of military disasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article with a faulty premise: a disaster, according to m-w.com, is a "a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life". A war or a battle is not a natural catastrophe, but a planned event. In addition, the list strikes me as a POV creation, as one side's "disaster" is another side's "brilliant success".
The article has been tagged as OR since Aug 2016 and has not been improved since, or since the two prior AfDs for that matter. It is still almost entirely unsourced, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I grant the nom's point regarding inclusion criteria, but also the previous keep !voters' objections that such issues can be overcome by regular editing--that is, proper sourcing and inclusion criteria can be applied without needing deletion. 'Military disaster' has plenty of RS coverage, so the list is not NN. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 1st point the term "Military Disaster" is the common term used for military failures in literature written about this. Secondly, there are a number of books, articles and websites that address this topic, so it would be worthy of an article. It may need more references, but there are no ground to delete it, IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See no grounds for deletion. Maybe a clear list inclusion criteria, which can be addressed by WP:NOTDUP. Ajf773 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom's comment -- I do not see the sources listed as convincing. They are popular history books mostly by non-notable authors:
- Chris McNab: The World's Worst Military Disasters. The author does not have a wiki article, appears to be a popular history & militaria author (other books include The FN Minimi Light Machine Gun: M249, L108A1, L110A2, and other variants, among others). Published by Rosen Publishing, which produces books for children ages through K12.
- Geoffrey Regan: Great Military Blunders: History's Worst Battlefield Decisions from Ancient Times to the Present Day. Regan is a popular history author.
- Paul Chrystal: Roman Military Disasters, published by Pen & Sword. Comes from a militaria publisher & a nn author.
- The list is too subjective to be encyclopedically relevant, IMO. The article on the topic of Military disaster is a redirect to this list, with the definition of "military disaster" being cited to said McNab.
- The only way I see of salvaging this article is to remove anything uncited (two prior AfD is plenty of chances for improvement) and / or move it to List of events (possibly) described as military disasters in popular history books. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - one wonders when we became the Academicpedia? I see no prohibition on using popular histories in WP:RS. What the nominator fails to understand is that popular histories are not automatically unreliable or poor quality - Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August is a classic, Pulitzer-winning history of the outbreak of the First World War. And yet no one need hold one's nose to crack open that piece of "popular" history. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's clearly a POV issue here. The number of "disasters" related to the British Isles in the Medieval era section should strike anyone as biased (Medieval history is certainly not limited to a tiny portion of the smallest continent). To further illustrate the POV bias, French vocabulary includes the expression un coup de Trafalgar in reference to what is considered one of the worst military disaster in France's history, the battle of Trafalgar. The list of 19th century disasters doesn't even include that battle but does include Waterloo, although French historians simply consider that this battle was won by a largely superior force (60% + more troops according to Wikipedia) against Napoleon's desperate attempt to reconquer his empire. I could of course fix the list to include Trafalgar, but this would be yet another form of POV. Such intrinsically biased lists don't belong to Wikipedia. JR Bouvier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 30 May 2017 (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.