Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemy (military)

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 delete and redirect to enemy combatant. --Coredesat 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enemy (military)

Enemy (military) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The Enemy disambiguation page already has a serviceable link to Wiktionary; this is currently a blatant dictionary definition. I don't see any potential for expansion, either; while there's something to be said about, say, uniformed troops vs. spies in wartime, "enemy" is unambiguously the bad guys with no particular special meaning attached to it. So even on Wiktionary, I don't see military use as meriting a different definition any more than "Enemy in sports" or "Enemy in social relations."

This was previously up for speedy deletion, but this was declined. For a short time this was redirected to Enemy combatant, but they're not quite the same thing, so deletion is preferable to a redirect. SnowFire 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - For the reasons above. Davidovic 08:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with SnowFire/Davidovic. As I've said before on this article's talk page, this is only a definition, and there is already a definition in Wiktionary. Apart from giving examples of notable (military) enemies, this article doesn't seem to do anything useful (And even then, the examples are pretty ambiguous, don't really help to define what an enemy is). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex Kitten (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This article is different than any other article at Wikipedia and it has the potential to expand, which is all that is required for an article at Wikipedia. There should be a "Keep and Expand" +tag on the article not delete. The article has only existed for one day and has many interwiki links [1] with a future potential of 1,000s of interwiki links. This article is not a dictionary definition it is an encyclopedic article, many terms in Wikipedia have related definitions interwiki linked to Wiktionary, for ex7ample: Apocalypse, Male etc. Chessy999 10:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It has all those links because you've put them there. And while enthusiasm for expanding articles is a good thing, my point is that there's no potential for expansion here. Can you at least sketch out some kind of future vision of what the article would look like? Unlike "spy" or "prisoner of war" I don't believe that there's any special disagreement on definitions over time for enemy. And listing enemies would be listing every single war ever and both sides of them, since each thought the other was an enemy. SnowFire 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - uh yeah, i did put there and your point ? Chessy999 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What's my point? If somebody created the article Ultrasonic Invisible Ironing Board but added links to it themselves from a bunch of articles, it doesn't make the article any less worthy of deletion. On the flip side, a red link from 30 different contributors may imply that lots of people would in fact like to see a specific article added and kept.

I'd think harder on the request to sketch out a future for the article. You mentioned Apocalypse above, and while that's not a very good article at the moment, at least there's some content there. What kind of content do you envision in the "perfect" Enemy (military) article? SnowFire 16:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see much point in it myself. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Enemy combatant. JJL 15:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete content and redirect to enemy combatant --Philip Baird Shearer 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Although the article makes claims that the term is defined by the Geneva & Hague Conventions, neither of those seem to actually do so (while they do take pains to define such terms as "occupying power"). The term "enemy" may have some relevance within the Laws of War, but its definition is almost certainly ad hoc in that designation of an enemy is done by a particular military. I don't see how this can become an encyclopedic article. --Dhartung | Talk 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "'The enemy,' said Yossarian, 'is anyone who's going to get you killed...'" humblefool® 18:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- It belongs in the Wiktonary FinalWish 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see how this article could be possibly expanded beyond what belongs in a dictionary. --Nick Dowling 07:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless there is something to distinguish it enough for a full article...which I do not see.Cromdog 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Dictionary definitions do not belong on Wikipedia. Transwiki if necessary. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The concept of the "enemy" in warfare is very important. Humblefool's comment (although backing a delete vote) just hints at its meaning. What is an "enemy"? How does the concept originate, whose interests does it serve? How is the concept reflected among peoples and armies—how does it influence their behavior? Everyking 09:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, plenty of potential to expand, the article is brand new, give it a chance to expand ! Chessy999 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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.