Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Col. Boyd on Warfare

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

[edit] Col. Boyd on Warfare

The article appears to be an original essay, written from the point of view of a disciple of Col. Boyd rather than an observer of his teachings. The central problem is that it's not really about 'Col. Boyd on Warfare' at all, it's a lot of original padding, unattributed, and I get the impression that the author is using Boyd's name to push his own theories.

The two subjects of the article - Boyd, and his teachings - appear to be covered quite well in the articles John Boyd (military strategist), OODA Loop, and most particularly Military Strategy (John Boyd), which is shorter and makes more sense. It is worth noting that 'Col. Boyd on Warfare' is an original title, and the article should really be called 'An anonymous person's bald assertions of what may or may not be Col. Boyd's thoughts on decision-making'. For all the length, nothing of it can really be added to the three links aforementioned.

It was listed for VFD back in June 2004 and seems to have saved from destruction by apathy rather than love. The various discussions in the Talk page's VFD archive came to nothing. Author 68.1.92.42's only other edits are to John Boyd (military strategist), although his work has mostly been replaced by subsequent contributions. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See prior discussion here

• Opening this can of worms with a Move request to preferably the book, and a very thorough cleanup of the article including POV and readability. By the looks of it, it can be condensed somewhat into a more compact version. The person the article is about is notable indeed, but if the focus is on the article itself, it should be at the very least cleaned up if it's to be kept. Inter 20:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The existence of Military Strategy (John Boyd) makes this article redundant and overkill. The previous VfD discussion mentioned cleanup numerous times and nothing was done. I consider it unlikely anything would be done this time, if kept. Also, the other article states that Boyd never wrote a book on military strategy, merely what would today have been a power point presentation, so it can't be moved to the book. If there's anything true, useful, and not included there already, then merge those elements are redirect to Military Strategy (John Boyd). -R. fiend 21:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Thanks for the clear up. Inter 22:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Military Strategy (John Boyd) covers this topic already, and is more objective. This other article is just more detailed, in such a way that goes beyond Wikipedia scope, IMHO. By the way, shouldn't that be Military strategy (John Boyd)? JoaoRicardo 04:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I see no reason at all even for Military Strategy (John Boyd) to be a separate article; it can all be in the John Boyd article it seems to me. I suggest merging that into John Boyd. Is there a precedent for other strategists to have a Military Strategy (Commander Whatshisface) article? It just doesn't seem logical. -R. fiend 18:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicates existing content. Wyss 22:17, 14 Jan 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.