Deletion of Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (2nd nomination)

Comment: It is bizarre that this article, which cites so many famous historians, should be under assault so that a comparatively flimsy article like Decisive Battles can hold the field.  It seems ridiculous  to prefer a series on the History Channel to historians like Delbruck and Oman.  There is, of course, much scope for improvement but this material is much too weighty and substantial to be casually deleted.  Our |editing policy requires that we keep this good material and make something of it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: or '''merge''' - Apparently there's some sources that could be used to argue against , though I don;t see them in the lede, and the various sections have some material that could be used elesewhere without problem, and possibly a rename or a change of focus could result in a problem free article, but as it is it;s the  thing that sinks it - why that particular grouping of conflicts? It feels like some weird POV fork take on Europe Vs Islam that's hiding under an overly convoluted name. Delete, let whoever wants it userfy it, and if it spawns new articles that don't have the ick factor then good on it. Alternately make good on some of the merges discussed on the talk page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NPOV)

Comment: in some capacity per  and  as at worst the article undeniably has cited material that can be merged to articles on the individual battles or a new article on "decisive battles".  One might also say to keep per  as the article is just plain interesting and these sorts of fun and interesting articles are big reason why so many people come to Wikipedia in the first place.  Moreover, the idea that encyclopedias do not include essays is bunk.  Look at any of the book of the year updates for ''Britannica'' to see many thesis-driven essays based on so-called primary sources.  Finally, the article serves a navigational function akin to a table of contents by listing these battles and providing readers with quick links to their respective articles.  And as a list the article is clearly discriminate: only battles, only battles of macrohistoircal importance, only battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions, and only battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe.  There is therefore absolutely zero pressing need to redlink this article, whereas by contrast we could unquestionably salvage some of its contents for use elsewhere and we never delete when that is the case per .  Sincerely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:PRESERVE||WP:IAR||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: as blatant |synthesis. We are encyclopedians, not historians
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)