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. Discussions of what to name the article can take place at the talk page. Wizardman 18:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is personal rumination on an old adage - not an encylopedic subject. TrulyBlue (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Keep.Move to offense as defense. I was going to try to defend the article's existence here, but then decided, the best defense is a good offense; hence I should work on improving the article instead. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. Personally I'd say that Wikipedia is not a usage guide applies, and am looking forward to seeing whether you can convince people otherwise! TrulyBlue (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used," but I think it is okay to describe how notable adages are used. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think this is the most viable option. People throw this cliche around a lot, but there's not a whole lot that can be written about the phrase itself. The concept, though, could be the subject of a lengthy, well-sourced article. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not such a great article yet, but the subject of the well-known expression and how it has been applied is a worthwhile topic for an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested not ready to say keep or delete yet, but willing to watch the improvements.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would definately not merge it due to the fact that the phrase is not military-centric, much less than military-specific. bahamut0013♠♣ 04:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - To "Offense as Defense". Interesting article that I think has a ton of room for improvement. Offensive (military) is a terrible article and doesn't really fit. If we want to merge I suggest military strategy or strategy but as pointed out, the concept of "offense as defense" has many metaphorical uses outside of military strategy. I think its worthy of its own wikipedia article, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and this concept is an important part of Western philosophy when it comes to the idea of "strategy". 74.92.148.250 (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a pretty obvious keep if the following is correct: The Best Defense is a good offense is an Adage with some notability. If that is correct the presence of the Category:Adages (which I added to the article) and the 61 articles in the category doesn't say KEEP then I am missing the point.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in the minority on this, obviously, but this article is crap, regardless of whether it's about a good topic. Essentially, it implies that Mao Zedong, or Sun Tzu, or Machiavelli originate the phrase, using sources that says no such damn thing. Other than that bid of nonsense, the article is mostly about mentions of the phrase in discussions of how to play the boardgame "Risk", or sports like soccer or basketball. Looks like a keeper, by popular opinion; maybe someone can add something intelligent to this dopey excuse for a page. Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you're not giving me a barnstar for my work on this? I feel ripped off. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encyclopedic; although I'd favor re-naming and extensive clean-up. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (conditional) - It seems the article is more about the application of the adage than the adage itself. To be encyclopedic, it should explain what the phrase means, the history, and only then an example or two. If the article could be brought up to the standards of, say, Godwin's law or Murphy's law, then I'd suggest keeping it. bahamut0013♠♣ 04:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you describe it as "crap" in your edit summary. Does this mean you're not going to give me a barnstar either? Well, as they say, justice delayed is justice denied, and I would hate to delay my getting my just reward any longer. So, I decided to take the liberty of awarding it myself.[1] Sometimes, if you want something done, you gotta do it yourself... Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but awarding yourself a barnstar is considered bad form, and I certainly regard it as cheap. Perhaps you could shift your efforts over to taking these comments as constructive criticism and editing the article. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This means war(Slaps Bahamut across face with white glove) For these offensive remarks, I challenge you to a duel. Or will you cowardly decline, making some excuse such as "there's no way we can duel online and I don't feel like buying a $1,000 plane ticket to come fight you?" Would you dishonor yourself by slinking away so ignominiously? As for the article, why don't you improve it? I did all the work of creating it, for which I have quite rightly earned several barnstars now. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
he does have a good point however, it is bad form to award yourself stuff (is true generally in life, not just here on wikipedia). I wouldn't comment on it but you have listed a whole heap of them on your userpage all from yourself. MathmoTalk 04:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, currently not a great article but that has never been a reason for deletion and I'm completely sure that given time it will become a very worthwhile and satisfactory article. It is very well known. MathmoTalk 04:50, 8 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.
