Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the War on Terror

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the War on Terror

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A clear and obvious POV fork of War on Terror. Jtrainor (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has existed since 2004. War on Terror mostly describes the events (as in it's not the same thing) and Criticism of the War on Terror is its own article due to its size. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Not only is the War on Terror article already very large, but there are several books and countless academic papers, nevermind popular press, dedicated to criticism of the war on terror. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While undoubtedly a fork, there's no particular argument for POV as disagreement with the War on Terror is a notable subject on it's own. Over 60 footnotes on this page so no issue of WP:CITE, WP:GNG, or WP:V and reduces any reasonable suspicion of WP:OR. I would guess this AfD has a snowball's chance in hell of resulting in deletion, but that will be up to a closing admin. -Markeer 18:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible to evaluate this article for notability because it criticizes something that it never defines. What "war on terror" are we talking about. Specifically. When does this "war" begin and when does it end? Does it begin when Obama defined the concept out of existence? Back in the Clinton administration when the phrase first came into use? How the hell should I discover if it's notable without a definition?E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Sounds like your problem is with the War on Terror article, no? The subject is explained there pretty clearly. It's a big subject and the term is used in somewhat different ways, but there is an obviously coherent capital-W/capital-T subject that is the subject of countless books, articles, anthologies, etc. (likewise criticism of the same). Do you read the War on Terror article and come away with a sense that it's not talking about anything in particular? Until just now, this article linked to War on Terror using a {{main}} template at the very top, leaving little room for confusion as to what sense of "War on Terror" it's talking about. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My "problem" is that there was no such link. And that the wording in the lede he wording in the lede does not make this clear. Fuzzy definitions tend to produce coatracks. Is this article delimited by Sept 11 and the Obama 2013 speech? If that is the case, it needs to be specified at the top.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no such link - Here is the version of the article when you commented. Like I said, there's a {{main}} link right at the top. That out of the way, if you want it to be clearer, you're welcome to edit the article or bring it up on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much better as a bluelink. User friendly because it is far easier to spot. I suspect that it got visually occluded by the AFD template. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SKCRIT "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question" AusLondonder (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Any suggestions of merging should be raised on the article talkpages. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In general I oppose POVFORKs because they are so regularly used as a way to hide or wall off legitimate criticism of organizations and institutions. In this case, it is justified by the length of both articles. That said, it's a lousy article, dealing as it does with only certain kinds of criticism, it lacks, to give just one example, a section on the sizable and serious critiques of American strategy and tactics being made by military analysts on grounds of ineffectiveness. It might also be interesting to have something on the campaign-related upsurge of right wing (Trump) and left wing (Sanders) isolationist critiques of the "War." There is also an inappropriate POV tone to much of the writing, it is, for example, usual on such pages to discuss "Allegations of Hypocrisy..." Rather than assert Hypocrisy of the... in a subhead. That said, even highly biased WP:POVFORKs can pass notability. This topic does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative solution to this article's serious POV problem might be to rename it Progressive criticism of the War on Terror and have a separate POVFORK on Strategic criticism of the War on Terror.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the above. A legitimate sub-topic that easily passes WP:GNG. The aforementioned POV issues should be resolved on the talk page and through improvements to the article. There is no apparent reason for deletion.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor coming on this page can keep as per WP:SNOWBALL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2016 (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.