Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:36, 29 January 2013

Unnecessary war

Unnecessary war (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)

There's no there there. Contains only a list of "unnecessary wars", and a list of "See also" entries, most of which would be inappropriate even if there were an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. Not only is there nothing of interest in the present article, I can't imagine an encylopedic article being written. Even a definition would be problematic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The article has been greatly expanded, but with nothing related to the topic. I do ask those who have !voted to consider whether the changes would affect their decision or reasoning. It doesn't affect mine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Having served in Afghanistan for a year, it's hard to think of a more notable topic. --Xerographica (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  I didn't say the topic wasn't notable; I said that there is not and is not likely to be anything in reliable sources about the topic, as opposed to about individual wars (necessary, or not). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article? --Xerographica (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What sources? The material in the article consists only of an unsourced quasi-definition, a list of wars said to be unnecessary, a "See also" section (mostly irrelevant). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to the sources in the "References" section. It's the section immediately after the "See also" section. --Xerographica (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In context, I should only need to look at them to see if they support the lead. Whether or not they do, the lead doesn't have anything which can be supported, or would support the existence of an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a classic example of Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill. None of the claimed "references", with the exception of this one (and possibly another which requires subscription), are actually focused on the term. The rest just used it as a descriptive phrase in normal language, not differently from how a food columnist may call a place a "good restaurant". As such, those refs do nothing to support the existence of the article as a distinct concept. On the other hand, Unused highway, which seems equally absurd as an article, was previously kept. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you please help me understand why so many people think that Misplaced Pages is a dictionary? Because according to core policy...it's really not. --Xerographica (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your query. Where did anyone say that this article should be a dictionary definition? It currently seems pretty much like one though, as it lacks in-depth analysis of the concept citable to reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I do below, several hours after this exchange. This stub is in the form of a dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This is an interesting case. This reads like original content and aren't any sources directly about this topic. It's a bit like an ESSAY as well. Vacation9 12:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete This article does not meet WP:SAA. it is hard to see how this could be anything other than "advocacy and controversial material". Each of the entries is someone's opinion that particular wars were unnecessary. And then the list would go on and on and on. (Too bad we do not see Pig War listed.) To balance the article, other peoples' opinions would have to be added to say "no -- that war was necessary." If the article is intended to talk about war as an unnecessary event in general, then pacifism and anti-war are available to cover the subject. It won't work to say "'Unnecessary war' is a concept that should have its' own article -- look at the RS that use the term." They only use the term because the RS is advocating their views about those particular wars, and not about unnecessary war as an overall concept.--S. Rich (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - No encycloped value, is this some kind of philosophical or motivational poster. Eduemoni 14:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - it's easy to argue all wars are unnecessary; or that every war is necessary. This article would never be able to be neutral (the title itself already marks it out on a specific side) either. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Also a classic example of my own Timbo's Rule No. 14: "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." Carrite (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I will state though that philosophers have for centuries been debating the question of what constitutes a "just war", and conversely, what makes some wars "unjust" or "unnecessary". A rewritten article referencing prominent philosophers discussing this topic could be encyclopedic and satisfy WP:NPOV. However, just war theory already covers this subject reasonably well, so introducing an overview of this philosophical debate into the article in question would simply be redundant. Moreover, my Google searches do not suggest that "unnecessary war" has become a widely adopted phrase, so I don't see the need for a redirect to just war theory. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Please, I beg of you folks. Please, please, please, please learn enough about economics in order to make an informed decision on the topic. Otherwise, you're simply doing me, and the readers, a huge disservice. Please see the talk page for my explanation of basic public economics. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not one of economics or government spending or even the wisdom of various government policies. This discussion is about a particular article -- the problem with this article is that it can only serve as a soapbox.--S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Please look over the entry. I hastily added some relevant and useful content. There's plenty more reliably sourced content that can be added. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't notice you said that. It doesn't affect my reasoning, but I also ask that those who have !voted to consider whether the changes affect their votes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  It doesn't affect my reasoning either. Some of the freshly added material in the section entitled "Opportunity costs of war" is, in my opinion, worth discussing from the standpoint of just war theory - which is precisely where it is best to discuss it. In my view, it has still not been sufficiently demonstrated that the need for a separate article exists. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  Did you read what I posted on this talk page? It's the difference between philosophy and economics. --Xerographica (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates