Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace (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 no consensus. It looks like the editing process will continue and it will hash itself out one way or another. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ace (military)[edit]

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

This is supposed to be an article on the general concept of "aces" in the military. Unfortunately, it does not cite a single source for such a general concept. The definition has had a CN tag since a day after it was created. Do not be fooled by the second sentence, cited to Goll: it is talking about flying aces only. The full sentence is, "A lone airman entered combat, fought with skill and luck, and if victorious won the accolades of the patriotic public." This article was created in the midst of a deletion debate over the article submarine ace. While the term "ace" has obviously spread beyond flying aces to include tank aces (we have an article on "Panzer ace" in popular culture) and submarine aces. Nevertheless, there is no evidence presented (and none I've found in English) that the general concept has been studied in reliable sources. The page is therefore an unnecessary content fork of the Panzer ace and flying ace articles (and the submarine ace article was redirected/merged due to lack of sources). Srnec (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia has already has an article entitled Flying ace. The term ace may have expanded, but it is not widespread. The term ace being more broadly used is not found in reliable sources. The concept of the article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability standards. desmay (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flying Ace. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the article was created (full disclosure, by myself) as part of the deletion discussion for "Submarine ace": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine ace. The topic is larger than just flying aces. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was suggested by User:Assayer and created by you. That's it. You proposed to delete submarine ace. Assayer proposed to delete "German tank aces" (now "Panzer ace in popular culture") and you originally voted delete. Assayer suggested the present article at both discussions. S/he has not provided any references to reliable sources for discussing the ace as a general concept. Nor have you. Don't get me wrong: it is a generalized concept. We know that. But that's original research. Where are the reliable (academic) sources? I did some checking and found none that discuss aces as a something general. Perhaps they exist in another language. I'm happy to withdraw the request if they are provided. Srnec (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that you strongly advocated for the "Keep" on the Submarine ace article, even though there were't any sources that discussed that topic directly and in detail. I'm sensing a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (prior deletion outcome) in this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can see my conversation with the deletion closer here. —Srnec (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I can see that the closer disagreed with you and considered Ace (military) to be the best redirect target: The title and thus the Redirect went best to the article identified; when it was created and by whom have no bearing on whether it's the most suitable architect. This current AfD looks like an attempt to re-argue the close of the Submarine ace AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a CN tag in January that was never challenged or removed. I brought up the issue three times on the talk page without a response. I raised it at WikiProject Military History. No response. Deleting this article will result in the actual deletion of submarine ace and its history per WP:G8, as surely you realize. Srnec (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tag has been removed by another contributor, who also added some content so this no longer applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Desmay. Kierzek (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an established concept. More cultural / propaganda than pure military - but it is. Sourcing can be improved - it is quite obvious it is out there.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An established concept, even if not a formally defined one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not quite sure of the thrust behind this nomination. I have participated in AfDs on German tank aces (that one I initiated myself) and Submarine ace and I am all too willing to concede that there is no general concept of "aces" in the military. But I faced strong opposition. The nominator, User Srnec, in particular insisted that there was something like a "concept" of submarine aces. So I am confused that the very same editor now claims that there is "no evidence" of a concept.

I may quote from the entry ace, air combat in The Oxford Companion to Military History (2001, 2004): "The concept of the air ace was born in WW I, a product of propaganda and the long-held human desire to highlight individual excellence." If you compare that with the defining sentence of Flying ace, the differences are obvious. While the Wikipedia article is about the aviators that were attributed to be "aces", military historiography deals with the social and historical significance of the term. See also Peter Fritzsche: A Nation of Fliers: German Aviation and the Popular Imagination. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.) 1992, ISBN 0-674-60122-X, pp 59-101: "The Image of the War Ace" and Linda R. Robertson: The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis 2003, ISBN 0-8166-4270-2. Thus the "ace" is an encyclopedic subject according to WP:WORDISSUBJECT. It is not "an unneccessary content fork". Surely the article can be improved, but WP:NEXIST. I would strongly support a complete rewrite of the Flying ace so that it would become an article on the the myth instead of one on the aviators themselves. But I am enough of a realist to know that that would garner strong opposition.--Assayer (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "military historiography deals with the social and historical significance of the term" as it applies to air aces, not as it applies to aces in general. That's why this article is a content fork. If our article on air aces is lacking something, it needs to be added there, not a separate article created

How can you say that there is no general concept of "aces" in the military and support an article on that very thing? This is incoherent. My position is perfectly clear: there is such a concept, it is just that it has not been studied or noted by reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Air aces" are part of the military, aren't they? I support an article on the term. But I oppose any articles that apply this term. I do not think that the article Flying ace is lacking anything. I argue that it is completely ill conceived. Thus I would support a redirect from the Flying ace to the Ace (military), but not vice versa. --Assayer (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an admission that the current article was conceived as a POV fork. This is not an acceptable way to go about doing what you want done. Srnec (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Currently the article Flying ace deals with aviators credited to be "aces". The article Ace (military) deals with the term and the concept as a product of propaganda(, not with the aviators). These are not the same subjects. Thus the article Ace (military) is not a fork. Besides, search terms like the submarine ace or the panzer ace, which clearly can be traced back to the "ace" in air war, can be appropriately redirected to that article. Since I provided reliable sources which characterize the "ace" as a myth instead of a reality, why do you insist on deleting Ace (military) instead of redirecting Flying Ace? --Assayer (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: I argue that [Flying ace] is completely ill conceived. Thus I would support a redirect from the Flying ace to the Ace (military). In other words, you think they are about the same thing. You just think the presentation is completely wrong. You won't edit the Flying ace article because you don't want the pushback (I am enough of a realist to know that that would garner strong opposition), but you think it ought to be rewritten to be about what the Ace (military) article is about (I would strongly support a complete rewrite of the Flying ace so that it would become an article on the the myth). To quote WP:POVFORK:

POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

I insist on deleting Ace (military) because it is a POV fork and one that happens to not back up its main assertion with reliable sources (i.e., there is no discussion in reliable sources of "ace" as a general term or concept—in-depth discussion appears to be limited to the concept of the air ace). Srnec (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing an important point: the flying ace as such and the use of the term in the military are not the same thing. And, as you certainly will remember, the disagreement concerning the submarine ace was resolved by redirecting it to the Ace (military). To press for a deletion of the latter means indeed a re-arguing of that consensus and resembles WP:POINT. Moreover, if you feel that the content would better be integrated into the Flying ace, you should argue for a merging instead of wholesale deletion.--Assayer (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same thing, but they belong in the same article. Even you think so, you just don't think there is very much worth saying at all about the "flying ace" as such. I deny that a few late votes in a deletion discussion constitute a consensus for the existence of this article. Srnec (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that both should exist. "Flying Ace" is a well established concept with fairly clear criteria (5 aircraft kills). The term has however been used for other military professions (and also for ground-attack in aviation) - tanks, snipers, ground-attack, submarine - in all of these contexts, the criteria is fluid and not-clearly defined - I don't think they should have stand-alone articles, but the use of the term outside of air-to-air combat should have an article (and should not be incorporated in "Flying Ace").Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is necessary to document other usages of the term "ace" besides tank aces and flying aces. In the absence of a separate internationally focused article, this article has the potential to cover non-German tank aces. Kges1901 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Precisely which persons were aces is a POV issue, according to precisely how the term is defined, but the concept is a clear enough one for us to be able to keep an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom. It is pretty clear that different users have very different ideas about what this article should be. One keep voter says he is "all too willing to concede that there is no general concept of aces in the military". Another says "the concept is a clear enough one for us to be able to keep an article". One says "the criteria is fluid and not-clearly defined", another: "an established concept, even if not a formally defined one". This could be settled by reliable sources, but nobody's got any. Srnec (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like flying ace has been officially defined, for example this Air & Space Magazine article which quotes USAF sources. And here's an statement from respected military historian Steven Zaloga about the lack of official recognition for US Army tank aces in WWII which implies that the threshold is destroying 5 tanks. Kges1901 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as other commenters have pointed out, everything here is already covered in Flying ace, German tank ace, and Submarine ace articles. Furthermore, there are no reliable sources that cover "ace" as a general term in the military. It's a made-up concept by the writer of the article. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is contradictory in itself. If it is a made-up concept, why should we feature articles on the Flying ace or the "German tank aces" (kept as "notable as such"[1]) in the first place?--Assayer (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is clearly a content fork of Flying ace. No reliable sources discuss "ace" as a general cross-service branch concept. Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Since the concept of "ace" is widely covered in books published by various respected University presses, including encycopedias of military history, contributors who maintain the notion of a "content fork" should either consider opting for merge instead of delete or argue why they deem that content not worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia.--Assayer (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a paragraph to the intro of Flying ace. The flying ace section at Ace (military) is about three short paragraphs in length. Given how short that is—and the fact that Flying ace needs work—I do not see that "merging" is necessary. Srnec (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think that the Submarine ace, which is now a redirect to the article that you question, should become again an article of its own, or perhaps something like "U-boat-ace" in popular culture? And how would you suggest to proceed with an article like "Panzer ace" in popular culture? According to the AfD German tank aces (linked above) the use of the term "ace" in military contexts is not confined to the Flying ace and notable, even though it is mainly used in somewhat popular military writings. Steven Zaloga, quoted above, has been the main witness for notability and is held in high esteem as a reliable source by many contributors. I am not sure whether the people arguing for deletion here are fully aware that these articles are connected.--Assayer (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the normal course of things, if this article is deleted then Submarine ace would be deleted as well per WP:G8. In case you missed it, you can see my conversation with the closer of that deletion here. There is no prejudice against the creation of a new article (of any format or title) on submarine aces based on the previous deletion—so long as it is properly and reliably sourced, which, as I agreed with the closer, the previous one was not. Since it is well outside of my area, I have no plans to create such an article. As for "Panzer ace" in popular culture, the current title is hideous. That is about the extent of my opinion. I suspect that more could be said about non-German "tank aces" and the article re-titled accordingly.
I do not think that these articles are "connected". There is the original, the air ace, which is both official propaganda and a topic of scholarly discussion... and then there is everything else, which is all derivative (based on analogy to the flying ace), mostly popular history without any official basis and only barely discussed in the scholarly literature. I do not think there is any basis for combining these things in a central article. I think the inadequacies of Flying ace ought to be addressed there. By analogy, see Squadron and note that we have separate articles on different types of squadron but no article on the general military concept of a squadron. Why and how do you think they are connected? This article only appeared in January.
I once nominated "Epic (genre)" for deletion on similar grounds to those here. Although I would say that I did not argue my case particularly well, I have toyed with the idea of renominating it on the same grounds. Srnec (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that either Wikipedians recognize the notability of how the term "ace" is used in military contexts other than air war, which they currently do, or they have to do away with articles on the use of that term in those other contexts. I keep arguing that in variuos AfDs. The content of that Panzer ace article could also be merged to Ace (military), because such an article is able to address the origins and analogies within proper context. Squadron, however, is not an image coined by propaganda and it is not embued with certain cultural meanings, or is it? That's not an appropriate analogy.--Assayer (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you are arguing for OR and/or SYNTH. The fact that we can see how the word "ace" has spread from beyond its original air combat meaning does not mean that we can write an article on a general concept, or even just on the multiple related uses of the word unless there are reliable sources that do so. Srnec (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I proposed the German tank ace for deletion, because I do not see enough reliable sources to write an article about that. However, consensus had it, that it was notable by its use in popular culture and that the sources (namely Zaloga, see above) were reliable enough to support that notion, and we have to deal with that. But the career of the image of "ace", beginning in WW I, would still warrant an article Ace (military). It's a military image, and not just an image popular only within the air force. Historians have been careful to link the image of "ace" to war in general.--Assayer (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Historians have been careful to link the image of "ace" to war in general. Can you cite some sources where they are not talking only about air aces? It is not enough that you (we) can apply what we read about air aces to the use of the term in other contexts. The lead of the article in question originally said that "The ace achieved success with ‘skill and luck, and if victorious won the accolades of the patriotic public’." This quotation is only talking about air aces, as I've shown. It was an editor, not the source, that applied it to aces in general. That is what I mean by OR. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the "ace" as a concept, e.g., about the question if it takes five or ten "kills" during air combat to become an ace. Such an approach leads to absurdities like Wikipedia saying about Roland Georges Garros that he is erroneously called the world's first fighter ace. In fact, he shot down only four aircraft; the definition of "ace" is five or more victories. It does not matter whether Garros shot down four or five (or three or six) enemies. Literature has it, that he is the first pilot French propaganda referred to as an "ace". You cannot fully understand how the image works, if you take it out of its context. As historians have been careful to point out, the whole idea of the "ace" was to detract from the realities of modern ground warfare. As Linda Robertson has written: "[F]irst, the images-in-the-mind of the public about warfare are derived from the mediating images of previous wars, from the artistic rendering of them in prose, poetry, painting, or engravings. Second, the very scale of World War I ... made it impossible to imagine, not simply because of the numbers of soldiers involved, but also because it did not live up to the romantic image of warfare conducted along Napoleonic example ... . It it is in this context that the significance can be most fully realized of the opportunity provided to propagandists by the emergence of air combat during the stalemated and highly mechanized trench warfare on the Western Front. The combat pilots offered a way to compensate for the problem the ground war presented to the construction of heroes ... Glamorizing the pilots offered a substitute for understanding the war's complexities or comprehending its horrors. Such symbols domesticated the scale of war, making it more manageable in the psychological sense: they distracted attention from the reality of war, enforced the impression that it could be understood... ." (pp. 100-1.) Peter Fritzsche wrote: "The ace in combat is an immediately recognizable image. In control of his fate, handling his airplane with great courage and skill but also with an envied recklessness, the aviator appeared to be a genuine war hero, comparable to cavalrymen in Napoleon's era or chivalrous knights in the Middle Ages. ... To this day, myths opposing the individual, distinctive combat of the aces to the industrial mass war on the ground remain deeply embedded in Western folklore." (p. 64) Surely you will say : That's only about "flying aces", not about other aces. But that's not the point. Rather the image of the "ace" as the epitome of the notion of "civilized warfare" permeates the military and conceptions of modern warfare in general. Thus from a historiographical point of view it makes no sense to discuss concepts of "acedom" in various military branches by various stand alone articles.

There are authors, however, who take the existence of such "aces" for granted. You have referred to authors commenting on the "submarine ace". Other authors, like Steven Zaloga or Robert Kershaw (on "tank aces"), have been furiously defended by other Wikipedians as RS. So currently there seems to be consensus that Wikipedia has to deal with this issue. --Assayer (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2017 (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.