Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War theory

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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War theory

unpublished synthesis and/or unattributed to reliable sources --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 09:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article should have been deleted back in July, apparently the tags on it were removed by the author (something I dislike becuase it lends the impresion of protecting one's articles or POV). IMHO, this is original research and should be removed forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Nuttah68 09:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article appears to be an essay and would need a total re-write if it's kept. War covers the causes of war so this topic seems redundant. --Nick Dowling 09:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No , the article should NOT have been deleted in July. I dislike the implication that it should have been, as that statement is intended to prejudice the decision makers in November. Please specify which sentences are not documented and we can discuss the need and the proposed remedy. I supplied much documentation after the original complaint in July. If every single word of every article on Wikipedia were documented it would look quite cluttered and no one would use it. Every concept in the article is backed by reference, either within the article or in the references at the end. I am concerned that the request for further documentation is really a disguised form of censorship, as the article points out some uncomfortable facts. Does Wikipedia only publish comfortable, popular facts approved by your corporate bosses? That would prove Herman and Chomsky correct (see References in article). Or should I quote the entire volume of Manufacturing Consent here and put everyone to sleep for a year? The only synthesis in this article is the category- War theory- which is not elsewhere available. The information is all documented. I do not believe you can make a good case for a different category for this information. It is not Anti war, or Pro war, or War tactics, it is solely about the motivations to start a war. I think this is an important topic. It cost Germany a lot of money in the forties and is costing the US a lot of money now. Human life has a certain value as well and the decision making process which ends large numbers of lives deserves to be catalogued. Would you be more comfortable with a different title? I am listening for constructive suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outofthebox (talk • contribs) 10:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

If you're serious about keeping it, I'd suggest turning your citations into in-line citations for clarity purposes. I'd suggest removing the bulleted list and reformatting the article so that it discusses the various opinions for and against war theory, rather than appearing to be your own work. Cover the history of how the theory came about, and what its implications are. JKBrooks85 13:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the title is the problem - it implies a general theory of all aspects of war If this article is 'solely about the motivations to start a war' then that's Causes of war which redirects to War which contains a large section on this topic. Your material seems to belong there if it is not there already. Colonel Warden 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article name is a misnomer; as written, the article would more appropriately be titled "Special interest groups cause wars". The article is not largely about war theory. It is unencyclopedic in tone and reads as synthesis and original research. Many major concepts in the article are not backed by references. Maralia 13:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is a (possibly quite interesting) original essay. --Goochelaar 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, WP:ESSAY. /Blaxthos 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per all above reasons. Re: PROD removal in July, that is perfectly allowable under Deletion Policy, and not wrong in anyway. As far as I can tell, no AFD header was removed, so the author did nothing wrong in that respect. An AFD could have been carried out at that point, but wasn't, for whatever reason. However, that oversight has been corrected now, so let's move on from that point. The rest of the author's defense make clear his POV, and that he made no attempt to keep the article neutral in anyway, as it simply restates his views above. - BillCJ 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A soapbox. I mean, it even has a War_theory#Conclusion: section. What more can I say?--Victor falk 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per any of the above (WP:ESSAY/WP:SOAP/WP:OR). Reads like a school essay, not an encyclopedia article. Cosmo0 20:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Violates Wikipedia's original research policies and NPOV policies. Goodbye. IvoShandor 23:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge - Some of the content deserve being mentioned at Just War. You cannot have this article as it is (see WP:SYNTH). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a place to post personal essays. I'm amazed how long this has stayed up for and how many articles are linked to this one. The author must be really intent on letting people read this. - XX55XX 22:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.