Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency War Order

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. Before renominating, consider whether multiple such terms can't be merged to a list. So Why 10:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency War Order

)

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

US military terminology. Tagged unsourced since 2014. Content fails

WP:V. The one external link is dead, and a search reveals no immediately useful sources. Such sources would be needed particularly for some of the more exceptional assertions, such as that military commanders can order "summary execution for refusal to follow orders". The page creator is indef-blocked for "repeated image copyright violations", which does not makes their content more worthy of trust. Sandstein 19:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: Page creator is no longer blocked (here I am!). This article also has no images, so its not connected to the block reason. I wrote this article six years ago and mainly relied on my military knowledge and the information from the external link which is now deactivated. There is some material out there about the famous "EWOs", but no one really seems inclined right now to find it. -O.R.^Comms 06:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. and reads more like an essay with
WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Neutral~~ Keep - These do indeed exist, but where exactly we could find good references, I have no clue. EWOs are normally classified documents maintained as part of Standard Operating Procedures, or more specifically, Emergency Operating Orders. The bit about the CO and XO not being able to eat in the same part of the ship during war is fairly well documented, although directly connecting it to an EWO would be tricky. So, I'm very neutral about this deletion. -
reliable source references). -O.R.^Comms 06:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. given the large number of Google references from search the term, including [1] there's no basis for concluding this is unsourceable DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The Time source you cite only briefly mentions the topic in the sentence "The third test—emergency war orders—is closed-book, given in a classified classroom known as “the vault,” and is the toughest of the lot." This only verifies the existence of the term, but none of this article's contents. We don't even know whether this is the same kind of orders as the one covered here. I assume you know that vague waves in the direction of search results are not the same thing as actual reliable sources, which is what we need as the basis of an article. Sandstein 06:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cited one: Google lists a number of others. From what I have read, there may be some confusion about the meaning,because it seems also to be used for such things as a specific order to launch a missile.

I added two references I found. EWOs were definitely real, per this extract from an article about SAC bases: The most important and feared command they could ever receive was known as an Emergency War Order (EWO). This order would mean the missiles were to be launched. . I also cleaned up the article and added a third reference to the EWO officer as well. -

O.R.^Comms 07:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cited one: Google lists a number of others, including the ones just added. But from what I have read, there may be some confusion about the meaning,because it seems also to be used for such things as a specific order to launch a missile. I think the article isn ow much clearer about that. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should it possibly be merged with EAMs? Smmurphy^(Talk)

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.