Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terror

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 Keep. (Comments from banned user NobutoraTakeda discounted.) Walton^One 16:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terror

This page is orphaned, lacks third party sources, lacks any information on the page, and could be mentioned as a link or evidence on a page about the War or Terror instead of having its own page stub. There is no evidence of its importance beyond being a part of topics that already have pages devoteed to them. NobutoraTakeda 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to War on terrorism#External links, then delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've performed some cleanup and sourcing. The document gets attention every time it's revised even slightly, although there is some distance between this E Ring paperwork and what the boots on the ground are actually doing at any given moment. --20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But does the document warrant anything on its own? It talks about notable items, but so does every email the President writes, or every note that clerks of the SC write. The merge to War on Terrorism seems far better than a keep, because at least it could be put to use as a source for the page on what the US is planning. NobutoraTakeda 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Topic A is the obvious parent of Topic B does not mean that Topic B must be merged. The issue is whether Topic B is itself notable. The examples you cite are important but not notable, because they do not receive the attention that this document does/did -- among them a 5000-ish word piece in U.S. News & World Report. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not recieve a 5,000 word piece. The information collected in the document does and that information is the topic of the War on Terror, not the actual document. The document is itself a synthesis of other sources. The document is not notable. The information refered to, i.e. aspects of the War on Terror are. NobutoraTakeda 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the strategic plan for the war on terror is the subject of the article. A strategic plan which took 18 months to write involving hundreds of stakeholders in and out of the Pentagon. A strategic plan which is notable because it has received coverage specific to itself. Your logic here escapes me. If the document is not notable, why are people writing about it in major publications? --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the book itself is frequently used as a source, and referred to as authoritative, it is notable. Many of the topics it talks about will be also, bu tthat is separate. DGG (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being used as a source does not make it notable enough to have its own page. NobutoraTakeda 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic? When does Brittanica ever have "here is the whole document" as anything on it? There is no history of the document. No background to the document. And any of that is not notable. NobutoraTakeda 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may want to make yourself aware of the current state of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, how's that working for ya? [1] ~ Infrangible 01:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the War on Terror. There doesn't need to be a second page on the War on Terror report that merely summarizes information that belongs on the War on Terror. Having them list it as a source of information does not make it notable. Sources must talk about the content on a critical or analytic level, not the material in the topic. This is the same as any book page and should be judged on that criteria. NobutoraTakeda 01:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are trying to conflate things. The report on the War on Terror is not the same thing as the War on Terror itself. They are not the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]