Deletion of List of military disasters (4th nomination)

Comment: passes  by being the topic of many reliable sources and for many of the reasons above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: or completely rewrite) per . A military disaster is a notable topic, but any list is inherently subjective and has OR problems. An encyclopedic article would require a complete rewrite or shift
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: as  and based on a faulty premise: a disaster, according to m-w.com, is a "a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life". A war or a battle is not a natural catastrophe, but a planned event. The fact that writers publish books with a click-bait headlines does not mean that the concept of a "military disaster" actually exists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per nom,  failure with subjective inclusion criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: While the current definition of a military disaster is one that has invited OR, if it were to be changed to "any  describing a battle as a disaster", would that get rid of most of the article's problems
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: passes  by being the topic of many reliable sources. Any and all  issues can be dealt with without deletion. Why is sourcing based mostly on one source, McNab, as {{u|Cinderella157}} notes? It's because I stumbled upon this article about a week ago and noticed that it was almost entirely unsourced. I happened to have the book by MaNab in my bookshelf and thought I'd reference everything I could in this article, and I did. Now, imagine someone with not only one book but a library. It's demonstrably possible to cite uncited entries in this article like I did or, failing that, remove those entries that cannot be cited. Neither route requires deletion. –&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:OR)

Comment: passes , due to being discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_100_Worst_Military_Disasters_in_Hist/unjEDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover |title=The 100 Worst Military Disasters in History |author=John T. Kuehn |year=2020 |isbn=9781440862694 |publisher=ABC-CLIO}}{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Roman_Military_Disasters/sFeqCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 |title=Roman Military Disasters: Dark Days & Lost Legions |author=Paul Chrystal |year=2015 |isbn=9781473873957 |publisher=Pen & Sword Books}}{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Great_Military_Disasters/Y2qrBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover |title=Great Military Disasters: From Bannockburn to Stalingrad |author=Julian Spilsbury |year=2015 |isbn=9781784292157 |publisher=Quercus Publishing}}{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/World_s_Worst_Military_Disasters/AlED5Dseaw0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover |title=World's Worst Military Disasters |author=Chris McNabl |year=2009 |isbn=9781404218413 |publisher=Rosen}}{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Snafu/BqYMAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 |title=Snafu: Great American Military Disasters |author=Geoffrey Regan |year=1994 |isbn=9780380767557 |publisher=Avon Books}}{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Great_Military_Disasters/rm5wQgAACAAJ?hl=en |title=Great Military Disasters: A Historical Survey of Military Incompetence |author=Geoffrey Regan |year=1987 |isbn=9780871315373 |publisher=M. Evans}}{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Arrogant_Armies/_WKgAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 |title=Arrogant Armies: Great Military Disasters and the Generals Behind Them |author=James M. Perry |year=2005 |isbn=9780785820239 |publisher=Castle Books}}{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Scottish_Military_Disasters/ArB5TFiCXO0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover |title=Scottish Military Disasters |author=Paul Cowan |year=2011 |isbn=9781906476588 |publisher=Neil Wilson Publishing}}{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Great_Military_Disasters/PJmltgAACAAJ?hl=en |title=Great Military Disasters |author=Parragon |year=2012 |isbn=9781445464367 |publisher=Parragon}}{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Britain_s_20_Worst_Military/vlCDDQAAQBAJ?hl=en |title=Britain's 20 Worst Military Disasters: From the Roman Conquest to the Fall of Singapore |author=John Withington |year=2016 |isbn=9780750981279 |publisher=History Press}}{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Anatomy_of_Error/S_qSQgAACAAJ?hl=en |title=The Anatomy of Error: Ancient Military Disasters and Their Lessons for Modern Strategists |author1=Barry S. Straussl |author2=Josiah Obe |year=1990 |isbn=9780312050511 |publisher=St. Martin's Press}}{{cite book |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Military_Aviation_Disasters/NmdDQAAACAAJ?hl=en |title=Military Aviation Disasters: Significant Losses Since 1908 |author=David Gero |year=2010 |isbn=9781844256457 |publisher=Haynes Publishing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST)

Comment: The list as it stands is clearly riginal research. Inclusion on the list is ostensibly based on the definition by McNab outlined in the : {{tq|chronic mission failure (the key factor), successful enemy action, and (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure}}. That doesn't meet  by a long shot, because those criteria are not {{tq|unambiguous, objective, and supported by |reliable sources}}—there's room for interpretation/debate, which necessitates applying R to determine whether any particular entry qualifies. It's also a bit dubious if this singular definition reflects the consensus among scholars about what makes something a military disaster (if such a consensus even exists); having a definition which multiple sources agree on would be preferable. If, on the other hand, inclusion is ''not'' based McNab's definition, that's even worse from an R perspective since inclusion is not in such a case based on ''any'' inclusion criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:LEAD||WP:LISTCRITERIA||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:OR)

Comment: I'm leaning delete, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary, as well as to alternatives such as the one directly above my comment (something similar was the outcome of rticles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, and I wouldn't be opposed to the same thing here). Any list article needs , and these should ideally be the starting point from which the list is constructed, not something we add to a pre-existing list. I think the editors arguing in favour of keeping the list based on otability are really missing the point here—that's not the issue. ''If'' it can be demonstrated that we can have inclusion (and perhaps ''exclusion'') criteria that are {{tq|unambiguous, objective, and supported by wikipedia:RS|reliable sources}} (''nota bene'' plural) to allow us to make a proper list article, I would in favour of keeping that (as-yet hypothetical) list
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:LISTCRITERIA||WP:N)

Comment: and repurpose - there is no article on military disasters (that title redirects to this page) and that topic is clearly notable.  The actual list contents are -level bad.  The sourcing and inclusion standards are terrible.  Prose content with a few exemplars of military disasters would be more appropriate
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: for reasons cited above, and at the least three attempted deletions. Perfectly fine and useful list.  Lots of sources exist (''not'' ), and current state of the article's citations is in no way dispositive.  Helpful to eaders
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:R)