Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts by duration

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. Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts by duration

List of conflicts by duration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The article clearly violates Verifiability. If this article remains in this state, it deserves to be deleted. It is in need of verifying, there are no specific criteria to add a conflict to the list, it does not define which conflict to be added, there are also conflicts that are categorized by month they were started and others only by year. Sakiv (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. GreenC 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy Keep this is obviously a significant topic, and it sounds more like the user wants to use
  deletion as cleanup. Dronebogus (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

And why do I do that? The article in its current shape needs a great effort to befit Wikipedia, and any conflict, even if it is between two villages and for several minutes, can be added to it. We need to agree on clear criteria for listing conflicts in this article.--Sakiv (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it has its own article, then its on the list. Dream Focus 01:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - It is trivial to demonstrate that conflicts have been listed in terms of length in reliable, independent sources and this is thus a
  WP:LISTN pass, see 1 2 3 4. I believe the Guinness Book of Records has a category for this as well. FOARP (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Needs more sources and refined criteria are valid concerns for the article. I don't think they are valid reasons to delete the topic, the purpose of AfD. -- GreenC 20:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- However this is a stupid article. In the case of the Scilly isles and Netherlands, the declaration of war may not have eben formally cancelled, but war ceased with the peace t5reated at the end of First Anglo-Dutch War in the 1650s, not in 1984. Many of the other conflicts were actually a series of wars, not one. There is thus an element of original research in this, but this is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep No valid reason given for deletion. If you don't like an article's condition, discuss it on the talk page. And if the information is listed in the article linked to, no need to duplicate references over here. Dream Focus 01:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on keeping but strongly, strongly disagree that it is appropriate to create a list for which Wikipedia is the source.

WP:FRINGE sources and this is a big problem. FOARP (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete completely ridiculous list because conflicts often don't end in peace treaties, meaning they technically continue. For example, as the BBC constantly reminds us, the Korean War ended with a ceasefire so technically it is still ongoing after 71+ years. Similarly there was no peace treaty between Israel and Syria so technically the Six-Day War has been going on for 55+ years which doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Resolved with list criteria and/or talk page discussions. Make two columns, one for legal end and the other for cessation of military hostilities. A notes column clarifying issues. etc.. Reality is messy but Wikipedia can handle it. -- GreenC 05:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:LISTCRUFT suitable for Guinness Book of Records or Ripleys Believe it or not, not WP. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Mztourist - Conflict duration is an area of academic study, and there are reliable sources where the duration of conflicts is compared (e.g., Appendix A-1 in Bennett, D. S., & Stam, A. C. (1996). The Duration of Interstate Wars, 1816-1985. The American Political Science Review, 90(2), 239–257. [1] ). Where I will agree with you is that the present state of the article is quite bad, filled with original research, and compares apples with oranges because the conflict-durations are not calculated according to a meaningful methodology - but this can be fixed with ordinary editing and is not a DELREASON. FOARP (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree. The reference you give is for a theory of conflict duration, which is a rather different topic. Mztourist (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also includes a dataset of conflicts listed by duration, which makes this a

WP:LISTN pass, and discusses in depth the factors they believe affect conflict duration. All the same the list does need work, otherwise we'll be back here. FOARP (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - @Sakiv, GreenC, Peterkingiron, Mztourist, Dream Focus, and Dronebogus:, I've raised a discussion on this that can be seen here. The TL;DR is there are reliably-sourced ways of calculating and comparing conflict-length, that exclude all of the silly listings on this page. FOARP (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep for reasons cited by User:Sakiv, User:Dronebogus, User:FOARP User:GreenC, and User:Dream Focus. They've said it all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, joining the party, I brought the chips. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though a listcruft at the moment, it can still become a good list if proper sources are added. Mukt (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn by nominator, the result seems clear and there is no need to continue the discussion about deletion. The article needs to be cleaned up and can be discussed on its talk page.--Sakiv (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• talk) 14:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I just undid that. You can't go striking out other people's votes. You should be able to post somewhere asking for someone to close this discussion. Dream Focus 21:34, 17 January 2022 (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.