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

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]
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]