Deletion of List of incidents famously considered great blunders (2 nomination)

Comment: poorly sourced and largely unsourceable.  All sorts of things can be considered blunders by some and not others.  Large issues with  and  as few if any sources address this topic as a whole rather than a specific subset.  Scrupulously sourced articles based on specific section of this list (military disasters, political faux pas) might be possible though I don't really recommend them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Delete" voters have come up with a long list of reasons to improve the article, not valid reasons for deletion.  The article topic is not , even if some entries are, and the article offers specific criteria for inclusion of list items -- so remove/fix items that don't meet those criteria.  Ditto for inadequate sourcing, concerns about present/future POV in some list entries, and systemic bias.  It's not subjective, |OR or |synthesis to report the published judgment of reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: When Barbara Tuchman, among others, has written a book on the subject (see ''The March of Folly''), and there's a History Channel program about them, it seems to me that a workable article could be written on the subject.  |There is no deadline, and AfD is not for issuing ultimatums
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: stomping with all feet, pounding on the table, and then rolling on the floor and kicking'' per  and |wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of whats not. As I see it, Lists in wikipedia are tools for navigation among articles that fit a certain reasonable classification, akin to categories, with an added advantage of brief summaries. The discussed page  clearly is not: I fail to see any articles listed. It is more akin to trivia sections, which are discouraged per . In fact it is even worse: trivias are usually collected per subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:NOT||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: This list needs a lot of work to bring it up to scratch, because it has serious sourcing issues.  If the unsourced items on it were removed, we'd be left with just four of them.  I don't think the subjectivitity and neutrality issues are a serious problem, because as long as the opinion that an entry was a blunder can be attributed to reliable sources (and for items "famously" considered blunders, I'd be expecting multiple sources) then I'd say the opinion is verifiable.   states that we should prefer to fix articles by editing rather than deletion where this is possible.  My feeling is that it is possible to fix this one, although it'll be a lot of work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELETION)

Comment: while the topic may be slightly , it is perfect for . There should be a list of generally accepted blunders...iraq war...vietnam war...hitler's decision to invade russia...etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:N)

Comment: Whether it is something we agree with or not, it is definitely not designed as an |OR, and is at the very least an educational reference list. Yes, I agree that citations should be included, and if the claim is dubious, the citations should be thorough and accurate. This by no means a reason to delete it, it is a strong reason to add clarity by clarifying the edit. I would also suggest strongly that we do not split this into multiple subtopics as others have suggested. 1, this would just garner merge tags to regroup them (as it should be), and 2, it adds risk that entire sections could be unnecessarily deleted, as shortened stubs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This list is more like a humorous "odd-spot" newspaper column than an encyclopedia article- it's full of |editorialising and |synthesis. And I don't believe that it can be fixed because of the subjective nature of it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:SYNTH)