Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incidents famously considered great blunders (2 nomination)

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. The arguments based on WP:SYNTH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE were more convincing in rendering a consensus to delete this article. MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents famously considered great blunders[edit]

Indiscrinimate collection of information. Why not List of great successes? Why not List of dubious successes? Also, it is quite opinionated and the word "blunder" is highly non-neutral. The first AfD vote was in 2005, when our policies were not crystallized. - 7-bubёn >t 02:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having just read through most of the list, I really can't see that many of the incidents described are blunders as described in the lead paragraphs. It is indeed an indiscriminate list - and very biased towards North America. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This list needs a lot of work to bring it up to scratch, because it has serious sourcing issues. If the unsourced items on it were removed, we'd be left with just four of them. I don't think the subjectivitity and neutrality issues are a serious problem, because as long as the opinion that an entry was a blunder can be attributed to reliable sources (and for items "famously" considered blunders, I'd be expecting multiple sources) then I'd say the opinion is verifiable. WP:DELETION states that we should prefer to fix articles by editing rather than deletion where this is possible. My feeling is that it is possible to fix this one, although it'll be a lot of work. JulesH (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete, because there will be plenty of arguably reliable sources for such claims as that the election of George W. Bush was a great blunder, and then you'll have other people making similar claims about Clinton, and pretty soon a sizable percentage of newsworthy events will be eligible, because (whether or not they were indeed blunders) those who think they are wrong or laughable will be able to dig up newspaper columns and the like to support their POV. Morenoodles (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/cleanup somewhere, to a project if no person wants it personally. While the naming of the article is less than stellar and the political section is filled with POV, the military and naval sections are viable when sources are pulled from the relevant articles. We could also send the sections to different projects and rename this List of blunders listing all the resulting (referenced) pages. Deletion would result in the removal of several cited pieces of information. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - The content is useful, but the page as it stands is indiscriminate and should be removed. Each section could subsequently be recreated with more rigorous criteria and better sourcing. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When Barbara Tuchman, among others, has written a book on the subject (see The March of Folly), and there's a History Channel program about them, it seems to me that a workable article could be written on the subject. There is no deadline, and AfD is not for issuing ultimatums. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And if anyone says it is too biased to America, then add the European business and sports blunders (of which a number spring to mind - such as thinking hydrogen was "safe enough" for filling a Zaeppelin). This could end up being a quite popular article indeed. Collect (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's next? "List of mistakes in history?" "List of people in history?" This is indiscriminate. Ray (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This list is more like a humorous "odd-spot" newspaper column than an encyclopedia article- it's full of editorialising and synthesis. And I don't believe that it can be fixed because of the subjective nature of it. Reyk _YO! 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per above, pages like this is what makes wikipedia great and so interesting. Ikip (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highly POV list, even if lists POVs of various writers. From someone's point of view any major man-made (and some God-made ones, too) disaster may be termed "blunder", like, Titanic. (BTW, "titanic" is a slang synonym for a gross blunder, and it is even not listed here :-) Therefore it is not only POV, it is even pointless, since it says nothing discriminating or useful, i.e., nonencyclopedic. Mukadderat (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per JulesH (07:48, 3 February 2009) and Smerdis of Tlön (15:53, 3 February 2009). As Ikip alluded to (20:06, 3 February 2009), the ethos of WP:ODD seems to counterbalance WP:INDISCRIMINATE in this context, to the extent the latter applies in the first place. The concern raised by Morenoodles (09:22, 3 February 2009) is very strong, but just doesn't quite get there, I think; that an article will predictably be vandalized and weaponized by political partisans, and that the topic is hard to treat in an NPOV-compliant manner, doesn't presently seem to me to warrant the strong medicine of deletion. If it did, George W. Bush would be first on the chopping block (so to speak). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is already hard to define what a blunder is and what not, even harder to find an inclusion criterion. What is the threshold for inclusion, that some people call something a blunder? That the majority of people call something a blunder? Hence delete. Afroghost (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was prepared to like this list, what with the level of detail that's been adapted from the various books of blunders that are listed in the bibliography, but there's almost no sourcing, and it's not very well maintained -- nor do I think that one can maintain a list like this without hurting people's feelings. I think that a list of poor decisions in wartime would be sustainable, "military blunders", since there have been plenty of lists that included the Charge of the Light Brigade, Pickett's charge, etc. Other than the classic example of one person's bad choice that can be measured in multiple casualites -- regardless of which side won the battle-- most of the rest of these aren't "famously" known. A politician's gaffe, a business passing up on an opportunity, or a bad trade in sports-- mistakes, yes; famous, no. Even books of blunders have to scrape the barrel to fill up the pages. Where these come from, of course, is an editor pasting on a mistake that comes up in the news. Coming soon to this list-- Michael Phelps, a bong, and a 500 word explanation. Mandsford (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Delete" voters have come up with a long list of reasons to improve the article, not valid reasons for deletion. The article topic is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, even if some entries are, and the article offers specific criteria for inclusion of list items -- so remove/fix items that don't meet those criteria. Ditto for inadequate sourcing, concerns about present/future POV in some list entries, and systemic bias. It's not subjective, OR or synthesis to report the published judgment of reliable sources. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So yes, let's look at those "specific criteria", shall we? Question/invitation to those voting "keep". The article now says To be objectively considered famous, [an item here] must appear in a list of blunders compiled by a respectable authority or be noted as a blunder by multiple, unbiased sources. Is this satisfactory? To me, it isn't. Even "a respectable authority" sounds bizarre. I think "a respected authority" is what's meant, but "authority" surely renders "respected" pleonastic. And who would be a (respected/respectable) authority -- a tenured professor of Blunderology, perhaps? Or just some author of any old "bestseller", no matter how scantily sourced or whimsical? If you agree with me that it's not satisfactory, try rewording it. (Hardly an unreasonable request; after all, this is only one sentence.) Morenoodles (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...whereas keep voters haven't come up with anything other than WP:ILIKEIT. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might wanna "un-bold" your "keep", I thought you were a keep !voter at first. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. Reyk _YO! 23:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ouch a list like this is gonna cause trouble. It will always be vulnerable to people adding their own opinions, the mere submission of an entry backed up by some crazy biased source, would be too much. That might be worth it if it had some real educational value but I don't think it does, if anyone wants to read about the Attack on Pearl Harbour, then we have an extensive article on it they can read, this is essentially a "List of fuck ups according to Wikipedia editors" Ryan4314 (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with Ryan4314, to a point here. We're setting the article up to be comparing oranges and apples and doing so subjectively. Can we really compare business blunders to naval ones without causing more problems in the process? Find appropriate parent articles for each of the main subsections. Historical blunders are certainly notable but bundling historical blunders across categories is more likely to cause more problems than it solves. As a suggestion, this would make an interesting template connecting the genre across disciplines. -- Banjeboi 13:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to whoever voted to keep this page, regardless the vote outcome, pages similar to this one do exist, such as List of disasters, I invite you to start discussion for a similar series List of blunders. In particular,
- to fix the blunder article, which has bad definition that poorly matches the major dictionaries
- To structure it into several lists, similarly to (but not necessarily in the same way as) the List of disasters
- to set criteria of inclusion, which muse include at least
  1. Existence of a wikipedia article on the incident
  2. Reliable references that it was a blunder, i.e., "A gross error or mistake, resulting from carelessness, stupidity, or culpable ignorance." In particular, if the White Hall was burned to ashes because the cook forgot to set the timer for thanksgiving turkey is hardly a blunder.

Please let us continue the discussion in Talk:List of blunders. - 7-bubёn >t 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a highly opinionated list (even if opinions come from sources) with terribly POV title. "Blunder" is not a definitive criterion for an incident, since it is often a guesswork why an incident happen, unless it was proven in a court of law or in historical research beyond doubt. Laudak (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (a) this can be moved, just because the title is POV doesn't mean the content has to be deleted. (b) This subject is not inherently POV. The dictionary entry, as provided by SemBubenny, is a relatively NPOV way of determining what a "blunder" is (e.g. the aforementioned White Hall incident). (c) There is no reason that there could not be a decision that something has to be from at least such-and-such number of years ago to count (P.S. Don't accuse me of instruction creep, that last idea was for the purpose of example). (d) Any other "non-encyclopedic" content can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and is not a valid argument for deletion.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Splitting this into several articles would probably be the best idea. Most of the garbage was put in in the first couple of years of the article, in 2005, when people started adding their favorite "political blunders", and then in 2006 when the sports blunders started coming in. It's hard to put Bill Buckner losing a baseball during Game 6 of the World Series in the same category as soldiers being killed in battle. Since so much of this is three or more years old, I don't think it will matter if someone edits out the sillier entries, and edits the verbage down to something manageable. Mandsford (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,while the topic may be slightly WP:POV, it is perfect for WP:N. There should be a list of generally accepted blunders...iraq war...vietnam war...hitler's decision to invade russia...etc. Smallman12q (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were BIG mistakes in opinions of some. And the discussion may be endless whether it was stupidity or not. Of course it is in great American traditions for 50% of population to call their president stupid. But is it really so? This is the worst thing to come: to declare every war lost as starting from someone's blunder. All of us a verry smart in a hindsight. - 7-bubёn >t 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely subjective. "George W. Bush" and blunders gets 1,260,000 ghits - might as well add him to the list as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list seems to be, and ought to be limited to those where the blunder is uncontroversial based on reliable sources. Thus, there should be reliable sources describing the incident as a blunder, and no reliable sources (or very few compared to a consensus of reliable sources) saying that the incident is not a blunder. Thus the Bush's presidency, the Iraq war, and possibly the Vietnam war do not qualify for this list, but I doubt you'd find reliable sources that don't think things like the Edsel and Universal's rejection of Star Wars were clear blunders. This list, based on reliable sources, is objective enough for Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those voting "keep" may wish to remember that (i) a sizable proportion of the few source links are to very dubious sources (e.g. the thing about Edsel goes to some private person's etymological dictionary and a defunct page within a site for fans of old cars; nothing about the Edsel range or its sales is solidly sourced), and (ii) some of the "information" is obviously wrong, e.g. 1980 – United Artists releases Michael Cimino's movie Heaven's Gate, a legendary box-office disaster that lead to the collapse of the studio and effectively ended Cimino's career, or perhaps it was Cimino's namesake who later directed Year of the Dragon. Morenoodles (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but this can be fixed by editing, and that being the case WP:DELETION requires us to prefer that option. Sources for the Edsel being a blunder are two-a-penny; it is commonly included in books on this topic. I have one here on my desk (Stephen Pile, The Book of Heroic Failures) that includes it. JulesH (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. Two observations. First, neither you nor anybody else has put the slightest effort into editing the article since I posted the message to which you respond. No more sourcing of the sourceable, no more deletion of the unsourceable (or even flagging of the so-far unsourceable), nothing. Of course I don't expect that anybody will transform the article into something much better within a couple of days, but I do expect that those who airily say that it can be fixed by editing will subject at least part of it to such editing. (Here's me at work on a ghastly article on a restaurant chain of no particular interest to me that was undergoing AfD at the time.) Secondly, I wonder if you're conflating (a) sourcing for blunders, and (b) sourcing for having been considered blunders. I'm not familiar with the book that you mention, but its title suggests some humorous book that's mostly an uncritical recycling of what other humorous books have said.To believe that the Edsel was a failure, I'd want to see the matter explained in an academic book about the history of marketing; though inclusion in a book with a title such as The Book of Heroic Failures would evidence having been described as a failure. Or do I have it wrong: Does Pile actually argue each of his "Heroic Failures"? (Or does mere repetition make an assertion true, or indeed [see Duuude007 shortly below] does it give rise to at the very least an educational reference list?) Morenoodles (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Whether it is something we agree with or not, it is definitely not designed as an OR, and is at the very least an educational reference list. Yes, I agree that citations should be included, and if the claim is dubious, the citations should be thorough and accurate. This by no means a reason to delete it, it is a strong reason to add clarity by clarifying the edit. I would also suggest strongly that we do not split this into multiple subtopics as others have suggested. 1, this would just garner merge tags to regroup them (as it should be), and 2, it adds risk that entire sections could be unnecessarily deleted, as shortened stubs. Duuude007 (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even stronger Delete stomping with all feet, pounding on the table, and then rolling on the floor and kicking per WP:LIST and wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of whats not. As I see it, Lists in wikipedia are tools for navigation among articles that fit a certain reasonable classification, akin to categories, with an added advantage of brief summaries. The discussed page clearly is not: I fail to see any articles listed. It is more akin to trivia sections, which are discouraged per WP:TRIVIA. In fact it is even worse: trivias are usually collected per subject. Twri (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete poorly sourced and largely unsourceable. All sorts of things can be considered blunders by some and not others. Large issues with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as few if any sources address this topic as a whole rather than a specific subset. Scrupulously sourced articles based on specific section of this list (military disasters, political faux pas) might be possible though I don't really recommend them. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2009 (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.