Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeat in detail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. W.marsh 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defeat in detail

Paul August deleted my prod tag without comment. Wikipedia is not a usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. James084 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unverified, non-notable, no context, etc. Avi 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and unverifiable as a legitimate tactic. Sounds more like a strategy for Command & Conquer. --Kinu 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a common military term gets 15,600 Google hits. Wikipedia should definitely have an article on this classic military strategy. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete common enough term, but that's just it... it's a dicdef for a slang term.--Isotope23 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not a "slang term" see for example its use in the following Britannica article: [1] Paul August ☎ 23:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Gee, if it's in Britannica, then it must not be slang...--Isotope23 03:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I could support a merge & redirect to Maneuver warfare.--Isotope23 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete unless better verification shown, or cleanup if kept. Little more than a dicdef as it stands, and one which makes contradictory usages of another term. Not really a strategy or tactic or operational consideration that can be expanded to encyclopedic scope. Unsourced. The first two pages of Google hits are about a pair of books by a single author and about a single wargame, with only one hit relevant to the article's topic among those twenty items. In truth it sounds like little more than "wipe out one squad and hope the other ten brigades are all on lunch break at the time." Barno 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to merge and redirect per Isotope23. It's a well-known term (I was familiar with it from wargaming and military studies), but it's really just an idea, not a specific maneuver tactic. If your primary strategy is "defeat in detail", and if your tactics are aimed toward that end, you will almost certainly lose unless the opponent is heavily outnumbered or heavily damaged. Barno 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a very well-known military term describing an important tactic/strategy. Why do you think there there is a "pair of books" and an "wargame" named after it? There are innumerable references to this term. Besides the Brittannica reference above, and the others provided by Avi above, see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I could go on and on. It would probably be easy to find thousands more. Paul August ☎ 23:49, February 8, 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's so easy, and you clearly have references up the wazoo, why can you not be bothered to improve the article by adding some? That would be more productive in terms of making the case for keeping than sniping at people in AfD. —rodii 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In my view while the links above are sufficient to show that the term is legitimate, none of them are a very appropriate reference for the term. An appropriate reference would be some authoritative book on military tactics, strategy or history, unfortunately I don't have any such reference at hand. As for making any other contribution to the article, as I said below, this is not my field of expertise and I'm unqualified to add anything to the article. The only contribution I feel I'm qualified to make, is to try to insure that this article doesn't get deleted. I apologize if I've been "sniping". That hasn't been my intention. Paul August ☎ 04:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, OK, me too, sorry. :) —rodii 04:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Paul August ☎ 04:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you just toss out the {{prod}} tag without bothering to improve the article in the slightest or engage in any discussion, then you don't deserve to survive an AfD. --Aaron 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
FYI. I'm the person who removed the "Prod" template. There is no obligation on the person who removes the the prod template to improve the article. I have engaged in discussion. What do you mean I "don't deserve to survive AfD?" This is about the article not me. Whether Wikipedia should have an article called "defeat in detail" has nothing to do with anything I do or don't do. Paul August ☎ 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, improving the article is "optional", but I agree where the template reads "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so." The "Defeat in detail" talk page is blank, so you didn't discuss it until after the nominator brought it here for proper process. Removing the prod template without doing something proactive to advance the discussion isn't grounds for "don't deserve to survive AfD", but it's likely to cause other editors to discount your assertions. It looks more like edit-warring than consensus-building. Despite this, I'm modifying my vote slightly given the further citations. Barno 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Barno above. At least leave some kind of comment when the prod tag is removed to explain why the article deserves to be kept. Furthermore, if you feel strongly about keeping an article that, at least in this case, is little more than a dictdef, why don't you feel strongly enough to improve the article a little bit? Just coming in here and voting to keep and improve doesn't seem to get these articles impoved in any way; thus, leaving a hoard of bad articles. BTW, I would like to point out that the reason that I nominated the article for deletion is legitamate and until the article is improved it remains legitamate. James084 01:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I know just enough about this term to know what it means, and to know that it is a very common and important military term, and consequently to know that this topic deserves to have an article on Wikipedia. However military strategy and history is not my field of expertise, and without going to the library and doing some research, I am unqualified to make any real improvements to the article. That an article needs to be improved is not a legitimate reason for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Paul August ☎ 02:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And I would refer you to WP:NOT to point out what Wikipeida is not and that is it is NOT a dictionary. This article was a dictdef. James084 02:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And I'm well aware of WP:NOT, which says "if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia." Thus, that an article only contains a definition is not a legitimate reason for deletion. A lot more can be said about this topic than just a definition. Paul August ☎ 03:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This vote seems to conflate the editor and the article. Just because there is disagreement over the tag and you dislike one editor removing it does not mean that the whole article irredeemably needs to be deleted. You can vote as you like, however, I urge you to reconsider this particular stance. Georgewilliamherbert 03:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a important and well documented strategy. A few examples of its use; Gallic tribes attempted (and nearly succeeded) in defeating Caesar's army in detail at the Battle of the Sabis, and more famously, none other than Napoleon tried to do it at the Battle of Waterloo. There are numerous other cases that I can't think of off the top of my head. The article is poorly written at the moment, but should be kept and improved, not deleted. I'll give it some attention when I have more time. RobthTalk 00:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Legitimate military tactic. Expandable beyond dicdef. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: but should be improved significantly. It is an important aspect of military strategy, operational art, tactics, etc. I don't agree with redirecting to Maneuver warfare, the terms aren't synonymous, though they are related. I am going to start improving it in my spare time. Georgewilliamherbert 02:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Article has been Cleaned Up significantly. I've done a couple of passes through the article; I suggest anyone who voted Delete might want to re-read it now and reconsider. It's not done but it's a reasonable first pass now, IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above.
above unsigned Keep apparently by User:Pypex - Georgewilliamherbert 02:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep as per aboveMike McGregor (Can) 03:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as per Robth, and work to expand and improve it, rather than just rub it out. --Loopy e 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with thanks to Georgewilliamherbert. —rodii 03:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, expand and improve, but don't delete. This is an important military concept which deserves its own article. Perhaps the one who made the "Command & Conquer" quip, should read more books and play less video games.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If it's indeed a well known military tactic then it is encyclopedic. Elfguy 14:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, expand and improve, as RDH says. Just because you haven't heard of something, or it sounds suspicious to you doesn't mean it's a fake. Let the military historians take care of this, please. LordAmeth 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid military tactic and strategy, but concur that article must be expanded. As WikiProject Military History has just gotten rolling, it may be slow going. Please bear with us. --Habap 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is similar to Big Wing. User:Noisy | Talk 14:20, 12 February 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.