Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military disasters (4th nomination)

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 no consensus. There are two opposing points of view each with valid arguments. The delete side thinks that all military engagements are a disaster at least for the losing side (or, in my view, for humanity generally, y'know), and that it is WP:OR to determine what a military disaster is. The keep side points to reliable sources that list things they call military disasters, which means that in this view no OR is necessary. We won't reconcile these points of view here, but I predict that the list is much more likely to survice a fifth AfD if it is cleaned up to limit itself to events reliably sourced as a "military disaster". Sandstein 13:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of military disasters

List of military disasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been tagged with multiple issues of WP:OR and WP:V since 2016 and nominated for deletion for a third time in 2017. While the decision was to keep, there has been nothing of substance to improve the article or address the issues.

The criteria for inclusion is stated in the lead and has inherently engaged editors in WP:OR to extend the list. Any military engagement that results in a defeat might be classified as a disaster for the defeated and this is singularly un-useful. Such a list should be based on historiographies of "military disasters" and the criteria for inclusion in this list article based on assessments in such reliable sources. This is not the case herein. The component entries in the list are largely unsourced. Where there has been sourcing, this is largely to a single source - McNab. The article is unencyclopedic. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, totally subjective based largely on a single source. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, lacks news coverage. Hypogaearoots (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WP:OR failure with subjective inclusion criteria. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of sources available for this and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Here's a selection:

1. Great Military Disasters: From Cannae to Stalingrad
2. Scottish Military Disasters
3. SNAFU: great American military disasters
4. World's Worst Military Disasters
5. Arrogant Armies: Great Military Disasters and the Generals Behind Them
6. Great Military Disasters
7. Britain's 20 Worst Military Disasters: From the Roman Conquest to the Fall of Singapore
8. Great Military Disasters: A Historical Survey of Military Incompetence
9. Military Misfortunes: The Anatomy of Failure in War
10. Military Blunders

The current list contains the usual notorious cases such as the Charge of the Light Brigade, Battle of the Little Bighorn and Napoleon's Invasion of Russia. Any borderline cases can be discussed and resolved by ordinary editing and the nomination doesn't actually list any. The list has been at AfD three times before and was kept every time. Nominating this again is reminiscent of the "Just one more push" strategy of the First World War. The list needs more coverage of WW1 as the entire thing was a colossal disaster for all concerned. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have specifically asked, I will answer. But, I would first note, with the exception of a postscript, your case is a copy-paste of that made in 2015. For the 160 (odd) disasters listed, there are a total of forty ciations for the article, of which 28 are to McNab - one of which is to McNab's definition in the lead. Some items have multiple citations (the twelve citation that are not McNab are for 5 items), though I have not determined whether they specifically support the item being in the list or more generally support the list entry. Per my nom, there should be some consensus in the sources "dealing with the subject" of military disasters that an item should be included - not just that the word "disaster" is somewhere used in a source or that there is some perception that it constitutes a disaster (ie not WP:OR). Of the sources you list now (and in 2015), only McNab has been cited. Of the 160 items listed, I would cite 156 that have no source or only one source (McNab) that might rate their inclusion (ie not a consensus in the sources). On the remaining four, I will reserve judgement that they actually meet a consensus in sources that might justify their remaining. There is also the premise of the list where the subjective criterion for inclusion is only cited to McNab. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, none of that is a reason to delete. And naturally I repeat my previous comments and sources; why change a successful strategy? And McNab is just one of the many sources listed. Adding more sources is just obvious busy work per WP:NEXIST. For example, consider the Battle of the Little Bighorn – such a spectacular and archetypal disaster that I made it the lead image. There are entire books about this with titles including America's Most Iconic Military Disaster; Custer's Road to Disaster; A Sad and Terrible Blunder; &c. See also The Life of Reason – "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it pains me to support any deletion of a list sourced to such an illustrious name, standards on WP have gone up since 2005 and this list of military defeats serves little to no purpose, IMHO. WP:OR, limited sourcing concerns are sound reasons to delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:NLIST, due to being discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]}

SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Books have been published about these "military disasters", as others have noted. https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22military+disasters%22 has 53,906 Matches for "military disasters" in quotion marks. Newspapers have written about "military disasters" for quite some time now such as in The North-Eastern Daily Gazette (Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire, England) 27 May 1885, Wed Page 2. Dream Focus 16:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While the current definition of a military disaster is one that has invited OR, if it were to be changed to "any WP:RS describing a battle as a disaster", would that get rid of most of the article's problems? Loafiewa (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, probably not. Firstly, any defeat or loss could be classified as a disaster for the looser - though having the word "disaster" appear in a reliable source does narrow this a little, it begs the question of the usefulness of such a list. I have touched on the issue you raise in a response made above. Secondly, it does not address the issue of verifiability in the present article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is mainly WP:OR and the actual "military disaster" would not require a list. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons cited above, and at the least three attempted deletions. Perfectly fine and useful list. Lots of sources exist (not WP:OR), and current state of the article's citations is in no way dispositive. Helpful to WP:Readers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and repurpose - there is no article on military disasters (that title redirects to this page) and that topic is clearly notable. The actual list contents are WP:TNT-level bad. The sourcing and inclusion standards are terrible. Prose content with a few exemplars of military disasters would be more appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm leaning delete, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary, as well as to alternatives such as the one directly above my comment (something similar was the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, and I wouldn't be opposed to the same thing here). Any list article needs WP:LISTCRITERIA, and these should ideally be the starting point from which the list is constructed, not something we add to a pre-existing list. I think the editors arguing in favour of keeping the list based on WP:Notability are really missing the point here—that's not the issue. If it can be demonstrated that we can have inclusion (and perhaps exclusion) criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources (nota bene plural) to allow us to make a proper list article, I would in favour of keeping that (as-yet hypothetical) list. TompaDompa (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As nom, I will respond because of my previous response, above. My response was not dissimilar to your view in respect to criteria and multiple (at least two) reliable sources from sources specifically to the subject of "military disasters". By applying such a criterion, the article would effectively be TNTed. This article came to my attention because of the recent RfC re the Talk:List of military disasters#Battle of Vukovar. I reserved comment in that discussion. The discussion there, a examination of the article and of the past AfDs lead me to this further nomination. It was not a matter I took lightly. The past AfDs all pointed to a "potential" and a significant need for improvement but none has occurred - in how long? If the close is not to delete, then there should (IMHO) be a clear mandate to effectively start anew - this includes establishing the criteria for the list (we have similar views) and removing anything that does not meet the criteria (recognising that the ultimate outcome is likely to be nothing). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, as this is a purely subjective concept for a list, as has been pointed out above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:LISTN by being the topic of many reliable sources. Any and all WP:OR issues can be dealt with without deletion. Why is sourcing based mostly on one source, McNab, as Cinderella157 notes? It's because I stumbled upon this article about a week ago and noticed that it was almost entirely unsourced. I happened to have the book by MaNab in my bookshelf and thought I'd reference everything I could in this article, and I did. Now, imagine someone with not only one book but a library. It's demonstrably possible to cite uncited entries in this article like I did or, failing that, remove those entries that cannot be cited. Neither route requires deletion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR and based on a faulty premise: a disaster, according to m-w.com, is a "a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life". A war or a battle is not a natural catastrophe, but a planned event. The fact that writers publish books with a click-bait headlines does not mean that the concept of a "military disaster" actually exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - how many kicks at the can should there be anyway? Just the same, with the material already there, plus the additional content and sourcing provided above, along with the compelling 'keep' arguments, (vs the weak 'delete' !votes), this should be kept. Again...
  - wolf 03:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for many of the reasons above (especially the arguments by User:Andrew Davidson), though I do think that it would be worth trimming down the article to only list events described as "disasters" (or likewise) in reputable sources, and not just letting this article expand to all military losses in general. Rovenrat (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or completely rewrite) per WP:TNT. A military disaster is a notable topic, but any list is inherently subjective and has OR problems. An encyclopedic article would require a complete rewrite or shift. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes WP:LISTN by being the topic of many reliable sources and for many of the reasons above. Namkongville (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Into the Valley of NLIST rode the deletionists. Sources to right of them, sources to left of them, sources in front of them verified and supported. ... Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to be denied. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to relisting comment The list as it stands is clearly WP:Original research. Inclusion on the list is ostensibly based on the definition by McNab outlined in the WP:LEAD: chronic mission failure (the key factor), successful enemy action, and (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure. That doesn't meet WP:LISTCRITERIA by a long shot, because those criteria are not unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources—there's room for interpretation/debate, which necessitates applying WP:OR to determine whether any particular entry qualifies. It's also a bit dubious if this singular definition reflects the consensus among scholars about what makes something a military disaster (if such a consensus even exists); having a definition which multiple sources agree on would be preferable. If, on the other hand, inclusion is not based McNab's definition, that's even worse from an WP:OR perspective since inclusion is not in such a case based on any inclusion criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The current criteria are, ironically, a disaster, but that can be remedied. Inclusion on the list should cite sources, but that is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. I grant you, it is currently heavily dependent on just one source, McNab, but as other lvoters have note, there are lots more out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think its self-evident that the inclusion criteria can be remedied such that they are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. It's not unheard of for scholars to define concepts by criteria that are so subjective (meaning that different scholar ostensibly applying the same criteria might disagree significantly about what qualifies) that it basically boils down to I know it when I see it, nor is it unheard of for different scholars in the same field to define the same concept in ways that are so different that it basically turns into an equivocation. One example of such a concept is world language, which has both those problems. I honestly don't know if the WP:LISTCRITERIA issue here is a fixable problem—it may very well be, but I am not convinced by the mere assertion that it is. TompaDompa (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not that hard to identify them. Pretty much everyone agrees on a lot of them: Cannae, Crécy, Poitiers, Agincourt, Manzikert, Little Bighorn. This list does need drastic trimming though. Siege of Chittorgarh (1303)??? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me, that just points to it being a "I know it when I see it" kind of situation. Or are you saying that there are WP:LISTCRITERIA that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources which would include the Battle of Cannae, Battle of Crécy, Battle of Poitiers, Battle of Agincourt, Battle of Manzikert, and Battle of the Little Bighorn while excluding the Siege of Chittorgarh (1303)? If so, what are those criteria? TompaDompa (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:TompaDompa To me, repetition repetition repetition doesn't strengthen your argument. It seems to exemplify a lack of strategic thinking, harkening to a great military disaster. If you couldn't convince them the first few times ... then you won't. On to Moscow ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not attempting to convince anyone. If anything, I'm trying to get other editors to convince me that this list can have proper inclusion criteria. I wish someone would address that issue; I can't tell if the responses are missing the point about the inclusion criteria or deliberately ignoring it, hence why I'm repeating the question.
              I'm honestly made a bit uncomfortable by your reference to some kind of strategy—this is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and I'm not trying to get the discussion to be closed in any particular way. What I'm trying to do is figure out what the best way to deal with this list article is. There seems to be a general agreement that its current state is not satisfactory. Some editors think a cleanup would be sufficient; I think we need to have proper WP:LISTCRITERIA to be able to clean it up, and I don't think that has been demonstrated to be possible (but if it is, the list should be kept and cleaned up according to those criteria). Some editors think it should be turned into a prose article; I think that's a perfectly valid option, see WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction for an example of a poor list article being turned into a decent (if short) prose article. Some editors think it should be outright deleted; I think that's an acceptable option if it cannot be demonstrated that we can have proper WP:LISTCRITERIA. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly keep, but rename to Most one sided battles in history. If not, delete. There are to many disasters in war. Belevalo (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2021 (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.