Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifth generation warfare

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 of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth generation warfare

Original essay; unsupported by reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - original research. Kjetil_r 14:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - someone's pet concept. A mere 138 Ghits. --Nydas 14:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete original research.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Crossmr 16:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsupported original research --Ace Diamond 18:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kafziel 19:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Overall poor quality (though that's fixable); uses private blogs as sources; classic example of original research. If you read the reference to what Lind says about 5GW, it's apparent that him not thinking it has happened yet is a gross understatement - he doesn't believe we've even scratched the surface of 4GW yet. Given that the entire generational warfare paradigm is Lind's creation, we should go only by what Lind says about the fifth generation: Simply, it's the hypothetical next generation. Since that tells us nothing encyclopedic, there's no point having an article on it at all. (What would be a point on having an article on the year 2007 if all it said was "Next year"?) ---DrLeebot 16:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC), comments edited by self 13:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Fix it Poor quality. Although the article uses sources, the use is primarily in links to those sources without a quality overview of the theories being expressed by those source. Lind is not the only author to have published on generational warfare, although he created the concept; as with most theories, others build upon it. Not sure that any blogs are really private, since most are quite public, but am also not sure to what degree these sources may achieve a status of reliability. Gravitons also are only hypothetical, but they warrant a Wikipedia article. The concept of gravitons has some basis, however dismissed by others, and the concept being addressed by the linked sources also has some basis. E.g., the recent purported document seized in al-Zarqawi's safe house clearly shows thinking in line with the theories being linked (document) (not that anyone would know this from the bare article being discussed), but it is an approach to warfare that was not addressed by Lind's 4GW model. The problem with this article is that the arguments against the subject as well as the theories themselves have been largely ignored, i.e. have not been provided with sufficient depth for a casual reader to understand what is meant by the title and subject of the title --CurtisGaleWeeks 05:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

• Delete Per nom. StuffOfInterest 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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.