Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resource war

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 was delete. --Ezeu 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resource war

I am completing a nomination started by someone else. Rationale has been provided in the edit summary: "paranoid claptrap - entry itself presumes POV". Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 17:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Although the list of authors establishes prima facia verifiability, is the article drawn from these? If so, why does it list North Korea as a "current conflict"? A resource war where no active war exists? whatever. Gazpacho 18:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is largely hare-brained nonsense (e.g. "It is widely understood that the world's major powers (the USA, the EU and China) and practically all other nations are in a final desperate struggle ") The appropriate place for such material (presuming there is one!) is surely as a minor part of the broader (and well-written!) material on the causes of war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War#Causes_of_war
• Delete for the reasons given by previous posters. This is potentially a serious topic, but this article seems more concerned with getting up the average word length rather than making sense. POV statements, wild assertions ("It is widely understood..."). Enough. Emeraude 19:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment' I know Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but could [[[World War One]] be considered a resource war? And germany did invade the Ruhr and Saarland in World War Two... I think those are resource wars, but not complete ones. This is written well, and makes good sense, though. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. The concept of a "resource war" is a valid one, and there is plenty of scholarly material about how the Iraq war can be classed as a resource war, and how the 1967 6-day war can be viewed as a resource war over water. However, the concept needs careful handling and this article is simply a collection of unsourced POV statements and wild assertions, all conveyed in a most unenclyclopedic tone. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: the current text is garbage by the term is valid, e.g. see recent EU publication mentioned on [1]. Pavel Vozenilek 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There's definitely an emerging consensus that the current text needs to go. A remaining question is whether the subject deserves its own (improved) entry. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that wars have been and be fought over resources, so this questions centres on whether the term 'resource war' is accepted terminology in war history, or whether such issues are better treated under the 'causes of war' article. My preference is for the latter, but I could be convinced by decent references to material on the concept of a 'resource war'. --Nmcmurdo 12:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Refine and Keep: Important theoretical concept, to be presented as such. -RatSkrew 14:06, 1 November 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.