Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Views of the French 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Views of the French military[edit]

Unsourced, unargumented useless non-neutral and polemic point of view based article. This article is amateurish and all but encyclopaedic. I hereby vote him for DELETION. Cliché Online 05:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pure nonsense. I agree it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.126.100.250 (talk • contribs) .
Not only is it nonsense, but it is also redundant with the same francophobe gibberish that you can find in the Francophobia and "Anti-French sentiment in the US" articles. It's a shame that prejudiced people are trying to use Wikipedia to justify their prejudices and present them as facts worthy of an encyclopedia. Yes, this article should be deleted, it's a shame for Wikipedia. Tocquevil 09:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was created amidst the hullaballoo that was started when Military History of France was displayed on the front page as a featured article. People desperately wanted to reflect some of the views other cultures hold of the French military, because it seems that's what first comes to mind for many American and British Wikipedians when it comes to France's military. I propose a merger to another related article (like Francophobia), and the material can be converted into a section of that article. --Perimosocordiae 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, "views" articles are not encyclopedic, moreover starting a "views of the French" will enable a "views of the British", then a "views of the American", and a "views of the Japanese"... The only source for the article is The Simpsons... wow really impressive! It was probably made by kids. Synchronicity I 06:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly original research, heavy WP:POV issues too. I agree with Synchronicity I that this article is inherently WP:POV and a WP:NPOV version inherently cannot be written. Gwernol 10:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:POV, article name is already POV, and no way this article will be neutral. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 11:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All "views..." articles should burn in hell. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Including Views of the Universe and Views On News? Uncle G 14:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nonsense ST47 17:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because... no, just delete-Doc 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the POV issues, this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Agent 86 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay. Danny Lilithborne 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conceptions about French military prowess... first became prevalent during the reign of Louis XIV. Uh-huh. Delete. bikeable (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP not a soapbox, etc. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 02:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through hell trying to oppose this article after my Military history of France went on the Main Page. This article was opportunistic, a pure spinoff of the main article.UberCryxic 03:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previously stated arguments. POV, not an article. --MPD01605 (T / C) 03:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really resembles a blog of POV. The subject is covered in Anti-French sentiment in the United States or Francophobia the topic is far too broad. Wikipedia doesn't have chains of articles for example Views of the Austrian Military, Views of the Cambodian Military etc. As per arguments above. Kyle sb 15:35, 27 August 2006 (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.