Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Unnecessary war: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:37, 29 January 2013 editXerographica (talk | contribs)2,148 edits Unnecessary war: Keep← Previous edit Revision as of 11:03, 29 January 2013 edit undoArthur Rubin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers130,168 edits Unnecessary war: nothing in reliable sources about the _topic_Next edit →
Line 7: Line 7:
:Let me rephrase that. Not only is there nothing of interest in the present article, I can't imagine an encylopedic article being written. Even a '''definition''' would be problematic. — ] ] 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC) :Let me rephrase that. Not only is there nothing of interest in the present article, I can't imagine an encylopedic article being written. Even a '''definition''' would be problematic. — ] ] 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Having served in Afghanistan for a year, it's hard to think of a more notable topic. --] (]) 10:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. Having served in Afghanistan for a year, it's hard to think of a more notable topic. --] (]) 10:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
*:I didn't say the topic wasn't notable; I said that there is not and is not likely to be anything in reliable sources about the ''topic'', as opposed to about individual wars (necessary, or not). — ] ] 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:03, 29 January 2013

Unnecessary war

Unnecessary war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no there there. Contains only a list of "unnecessary wars", and a list of "See also" entries, most of which would be inappropriate even if there were an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. Not only is there nothing of interest in the present article, I can't imagine an encylopedic article being written. Even a definition would be problematic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Categories: