Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Revival of the draft

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 - no consensus

[edit] Revival of the draft

This page is more of a current event and not really one of those articles that can serve as a reference for a long time. It is not notable to have just "revival of the draft" as the topic. This article is more like a part of a political platform and belongs in the article about the person or the event that brought it up. No potential to become encyclopedic. --flyhighplato 14:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep content, either as standalone article or merge with draft and redirect. This is an enduring, major topic, well worth someone's attention. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Merge with draft but no redirect. I really don't see anyone searching the term. Draft reinstatement is probably more commonly used. And has been proposed several times since the abandonment of the draft. -Vina 17:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary, with a questionable POV. It would, however make a good item for inclusion into the draft Conscription article, written from a neutral POV. --Feedle 17:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree about content should be in Conscription. I'm neutral on redirection: the topic isn't really "encyclopedic". --Feedle 01:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Conscription; this is a major topic, as Wile E. said, but the current article focuses way too much on issues that will be moot for this article in three months and has no historical information, nor does it explain the motivations of the various political actors involved (Rangel's idea of reinstating the draft is for dramatically different reasons than a hypothetical Bush reinstatement plan). The conscription article, while not perfect, is far more mature. - RedWordSmith 17:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Conscription, I agree. Oh, I'll bet that a draft is coming again, too, but hyperventilating articles about current events are not encyclopedic, and shrill articles in general are POV. Geogre 18:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep until after the election, the proper main article is conscription but that is not succinct enough for the politicos, I fear if this is deleted, they will just try to create a stealth page with only one POV elsewhere. Keep this around so that they will realize they won't achive a single POV.--Silverback 19:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. We are not Wikigument. --Improv 20:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, this entire article exist for the purpose of POV. Kill it! -- Old Right 03:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I'd say merge or place under a better title and perform minor NPOV. —siroχo 04:05, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
• delete. not encyclopedic. Wolfman 04:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete! - I agree with Old Right and Wolfman. -- Crevaner 05:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The article on Conscription has a country-by-country discussion of countries that currently have a draft. It could add similar discussions of countries that don't now have it but have used it in the past. The "United States" subheading there could mention that the invasion and occupation of Iraq led to some calls to re-institute conscription. Therefore, merger makes sense. Incidentally, Conscription#The Problems of the Draft in the United States needs major NPOV'ing. It now states numerous opinions as fact: "The large militaries enabled by conscription are responsible for far more casualties than all the traditional weapons of mass destruction combined." and "The torture and attack upon civilian elements of the draft imply that no nation using conscription is justified under just war doctrine." I've left a note on Talk:Conscription to begin the process. JamesMLane 06:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. POV prognostication. — Gwalla | Talk 23:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. There is always someone talking about resuming the draft, often for social engineering purposes. Therefore non-notable. Gazpacho 03:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to conscription [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 22:22, 18 Oct 2004 (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.