Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity (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 no consensus‎. Similar to the prior discussion in 2012. Malinaccier (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nothing has substantially improved, and the issue is still that this a list of trivia. Indeed, having looked up Loose Cannons by Graeme Donald, which was cited in the last discussion, I find that its subtitle is "101 Myths, Mishaps, And Misadventures Of Military History". In other words, it is a book of military trivia, and I note that Mental Floss is cited in the article. The whole premise is questionable, particularly in these days of mostly undeclared warfare, and the inclusion criteria don't match the members. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopaedic. Lorstaking (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well-sourced and (IMO) an important enough topic to keep. This isn't a policy rationale, but we built encyclopedias to be useful and I enjoyed reading it, and was sad to see it up for deletion. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous AFD discussion; a renaming of the article (and) a clear definition of scope would still be helpful. But these "ceremonial unofficial peace treaties" do seem to be discussed enough to be in a list article.
Walsh90210 (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a reasonably well sourced article that asserts its claim to notability even if the topic is a bit silly. This may be a situation where we could delete the article by invoking the rules disfavoring lists, but we shouldn't do it as the article is, as @
WP:NLIST.
The deletion rationale is hard to discern from the nomination. However, (a) the objection that the Donald book has trivia in its title doesn't make it a non-reliable source, and (b) the idea that wars are largely undeclared today is a non sequitur and perhaps strengthens the case since it becomes more of a closed-membership list of declarations of war without a corresponding cessation.
The article suffers from lack of hard inclusion criteria. I'm not convinced that the great Berwick-upon-Tweed vs. Russia war or even Carthage v Rome constitutes an extension of war rather than possible grounds to claim the war was extended, but that could be sorted out later. Oblivy (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2024 (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.