Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punitive expedition

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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive expedition[edit]

This article is nothing but a dictionary definition, falling squarely into WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Adding editor decided "notable" examples does not make it anything more. Leave the definition for Wikitionary. I could find no in-depth reliable sources covering the topic of "punitive expeditions" as a standalone issue, only discussing specific ones. Failed PROD; removed by article creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Expeditionary Force - Although I think this would be good to merge the information added, none of it is sourced, and I have a problem with that. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable and distinctive form of warfare and the number of different examples of punitive expeditions which are returned by a Google search seem adequete to me. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Nick says, this is defintiely a distinct concept. See also Benin Expedition of 1897 for a further example. David Underdown (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently distinct to separate from Expeditionary Force, suggest WP:SOFIXIT is more appropriate than deletion. Justin talk 11:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the concept is distinct from Expeditionary operations. There are probably some good discussions of it related to the Raj as some of the columns in what's now the FATA in Pakistan were punitive, similarly the second expedition into Afghanistan, and Younghusband into Tibet. the otpic has potential to develop into a credible article. ALR (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while the article is little more than a definition, I can see plenty of room for development. It shouldn't be axed, but rather expanded from the current stub. Like others, I find it a notable concept and a particular type of warfare. I don't like the current format because it seems to be begging an unfortunate list format, but I think it can be expanded, hopefully re-formated, and is still worth saving at this point. --Trippz (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Definitely a promising article. No article was created FA, let it grow. Arnoutf (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While a stub, it is a distinct and recognized form of warfare. I'm not sure that it should be merged into Expeditionary Force because not all EFs are punitive expeditions. The EF is a type of force, while the term "punitive expedition" addresses a type of mission. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is more than a dictionary definition and is not the same thing as an Expeditionary Force, as shown by the specific examples found by the nominator. Nominator’s assumption that sources must cover the topic as a ‘standalone issue’ problematic. Based on that kind of reasoning, books on the American Civil War could not be used to source Robert E Lee, since they obviously do not cover him as a ‘standalone issue’. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator is correct: such articles are discouraged by WP:NOTADICTIONARY. All that may be said is that a "punitive expedition" is a military venture undertaken primarily to punish an adversary. That certainly sounds to me like a dictionary definition. Moreover none of the notable "punitive expeditions" have citations to reliable sources. I would suggest that military history enthusiasts turn to a dictionary rather than Wikipedia when confronted with a fifty cent word like "punitive." Aramgar (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- not only do I think this article goes beyond a simple dictdef in its current form, but I think it has the potential to develop. There's a lot of questions this article could answer that wouldn't belong in a dictionary entry: What is the international law regarding such expeditions? How have they proceeded in the past, what has been the outcome of some famous punitive expeditions? The idea of a punishing force going out for some sort of revenge (rather than for conquering territory, etc) goes all the way back to Homer and beyond, and there's a lot of possibility here for a good article. Source for the definition seems fine. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a stub, and the single unsourced statement constituting article content sounds naive about why such an expedition is “usually made”. Merge into war if there's anything of value. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 19:38 z
Strong KeepThis article cites sources for many facts, and currently contains several useful pieces of information. 70.110.29.236 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The New York Times has over 1,000 references, with clear usage of the term as described in the article, dating back to 1892. The article provides reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a glossary. I suspect that this article cannot be expanded much beyond a definition and a list without delving into original research. Over the past few years it has often been suggested that someone create glossary of military terms for useful but permanently stubby articles like this one. Consider it suggested again. —Kevin Myers 05:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nick Dowling, Justin and Alansohn's work to improve the article. Banjeboi 00:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N and WP:V, and a bit of WP:HEY added in. The article needs work but not deletion. The term as a phrase shows up in more than 2,000 Google Scholar hits and more than 3,000 Google books hits. A quick scan of the results shows that most of them refer to the military use of the term, so there are plenty of sources available for improving the page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep...I don't know what the article looked like when it was nominated for deletion, but this looks like an obvious keep now. Yes, it is a stub--but yes, it is also notable in its own right. the_ed 17 19:43, 26 August 2008 (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.