Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General order

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General order[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This might be notable, but we have unreferenced stub, with a req for references since 2013. Unless someone can improve this, perhaps a redirect will suffice for now? To Operations order, perhaps? Or better, to Military order (instruction), which seems to be the parent topic? (Btw, if anyone cares for those topics both operations and the military order are very poor, barely referenced, and all fail to show WP:GNG, although common sense suggests that at least the general concept of a military order is notable, and I'd not be surprised to find out that general and operations have stand-alone notability as well - but until that is shown with sources, some redirecting may be in order (pun not intended), also given that 99% of the content is unreferenced and possibly WP:ORish in all of these articles :( ) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: Given your comment that you think [t]his might be notable, I presume you did not follow WP:BEFORE and conduct a search, so I !vote to procedurally keep this article without prejudice to opening another AfD if this topic proves to be not notable. If my assumption is wrong, please correct me. As an independent reason for my procedural keep, deletion is not for cleanup and since the proposal here is to redirect, the proper course would have been to boldly blank and redirect, rather than open a deletion discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC); striking per TompaDompa 23:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If the rationale in the nomination is not a lack of notability, a search for sources to ascertain notability is not required per WP:BEFORE (the specific instructions are If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. and Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability). Likewise, using WP:AfD to discuss potential merges and redirects is encouraged in some cases per WP:CONRED: If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Favor keep: It is a terminology in actual use, but the desired acceptable proof may lie elsewhere. I may have contributed to that article in the course of dumping general knowledge. knoodelhed (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find myself somewhat one the border between a keep and a merge. Fundamentally, I think there's a broad-concept article to be written here. For one, searching google scholar for ""general order" military" gives quite a lot of results. While most are about specific general orders, there are also some about the limitations of such order. See e.g. Hiromoto, Lee (2021). "No, Sir: Can a Military Doctor Be Prosecuted for Refusing an Order from the President?" (PDF). Penn State Law Review. 125 (2). ISSN 1545-7877.. It also appears to be discussed in the abstract in some textbook-style texts, such as Tutherly, Herbert Everett (1898). Elementary Treatise on Military Science and the Art of War.. That said, broad-concept articles are notoriously difficult to write and I can't help but wonder whether at the present a merger into Military order (instruction) would result in a stronger, more coherent article. Even if merged, I naturally would not oppose separating the relevant content into a dedicated article down the line when the amount of content so dictates. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As in many other AFDs, the choice seems between relisting and closing as No consensus. I'll try one relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Special:Allpages/General_Order for a list of articles about individual general orders, both real and fictitious. References from these other articles which might improve this article. The term "general order" is also used by regulatory agencies. See General Order 32 for an order from the Federal Communications Commission, and Potato General Order, Man Reg 123/2000 for Manitoba's Potato General Order. See this Supreme Court of Canada case for a discussion of General Order 162 of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and General Order T-40 of Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As per my comment above, I think there's an article to be written here, and my uncertainty is more about whether at the present a merger would result in a stronger article. That discussion, however, can be held at the article talk page down the line if someone feels strong enough to start it. Thus, in the absence of any good reason to !vote anything else, I'll mark myself down as a weak keep. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep without prejudice to a merge down the road (in either direction) per Ljleppan. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 15 March 2024 (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.