Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long War (21st century) (2nd 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 merge to war on terror. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long War (21st century)

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

Merge with War on Terror. This is just another name for WoT. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea in principle, but since the War on Terror article is already quite long, it might be better to start a new sub-article dedicated to the various names of the "war" and the associated controversies, e.g., Names of the War on Terror, and to merge the "Long War" article into the new subarticle. However, this is the wrong forum for discussing a merger proposal. Such proposals should be made on article talk pages, per WP:MERGE. AfD is only for proposing the outright deletion of an article, which is incompatible with merging for reasons of attribution. Sandstein 09:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merging was not the right term to use, perhaps. I still think most of the article should be discarded and add only a reference in the WoT article, with maybe a small paragraph. I'm saying that because, for instance the section "The U.S. Military in the Afghanistan war."(yes, it actually has a full stop there) is completely unnecessary. The criticism section is also something similar to the perpetual war section in the Criticism of the War on Terror article. Finally, the origin of the term itself doesn't seem so important, at least to me. And judging by the hits[1] "Long War" has, comparing to WoT hits[2], it isn't all that notable. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge: same rationale as my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etymology of War on Terrorism. The various names and usage of the WoT seem to have notability and verfibility in thier own right, but can't be comfortably merged into the parent article because of the latter's size. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you also support creating a "Names of the War on Terror" article and put all related stuff there? --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I'm changing my vote. Not sure if the suggested name is the best option. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with related material to form a new article, possibly named "Names of the War on Terror". --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with War on terror, but that article needs a lot of tidying up. A good deal of the present text will probably need to be discarded in merging. The present name certainly will not do. Possibly, Military operations against Islamist terrorism since 2001 (or Jihadist terrorism). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use whatever name we like. War on Terror is an established name in the press, literature and public and does not have a meaning as broad as the name you are suggesting. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2010 (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.