Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Col. Boyd on Warfare (1st nomination)

Enormous, rambling, non-wiki and extremely POV which almost reads like tinfoil hattery. - Lucky 6.9 04:14, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This guy needs a new publisher. Preferably, one that doesn't publish his material for free on webpedias that don't allow it. [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 05:20, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • As Boyd is deceased, I don't think he posted this article. I think it's evidence of his notability that other people have picked up on his ideas. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:27, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Delete now. RickK 05:21, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: If this were to be cleaned, it would need to be "Col. John Boyd," or, if "Boyd on Warfare" is a book (which the article does not make clear) "Col. Boyd on Warfare (Book)," wouldn't it? This is after the POV removal and simplification. A note to the original author asking for conformation to the Wiki rules? Geogre 11:42, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• There appears to be a lot of truth to this article. If we didn't already have an article on Boyd, I'd suggest letting cleanup have a shot at condensing it into a biography. Delete, possibly merge and redirect useful material if anyone volunteers to do the work. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:29, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. John Boyd is credited with a significant influence on modern military strategy. In particular it is said that Boyd had a strong influence on the strategy of the Gulf War via Dick Cheney; a Google search for `Cheney "John Boyd"' turns up many documents stating that. See, for example, [1]. Whether he deserves such credit, I can't tell, but he certainly is notable for it. He is the subject of a book, "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" -- Amazon.com carries it; sales rank 8,690. Col. Boyd on Warfare needs cleanup and maybe a name change but it certainly needs to stay. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:19, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Followup: the article was blanked by its author User:68.1.92.42 and I reverted it [2]. I see a rerun of the "Al-Andalus etymology(ies)" scenario here -- knowledgeable author posts something on an arcane topic; someone else mistakes incomprehension for incomprehensibility; original author gets cheesed off & we lose another worthy contributor. PLEASE IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS GOOD let's not go through this again. I've left a message on User talk:68.1.92.42; maybe the author will see it. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • So you're saying we shouldn't be allowed to put articles by new contributors on VfD? RickK 19:37, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • You see, there's this thing called Google... I have no idea how many times I've seen an article posted on VfD as patent nonsense, tinfoil hattery, or some such, when a very quick Google search would have immediately shown otherwise. I think you put unfair words in Wile's mouth, Rick - it takes very little more effort to be sure than to make a baseless assumption. When in doubt, dogpile. Denni☯ 00:45, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
      • Rick, I didn't say any such thing, of course. -- There are at least three reasonable things to do to get a reading on an article: Google for some terms, ask the author for a clarification, or find some experienced editors and ask them. It wouldn't hurt if we got into the habit of doing some or all of these things. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Jxg 02:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Move - probably to the title of the book. Aggressively clean it for POV and readability. Then keep. Rossami 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I did the Google test even though I'd heard of the guy. I wasn't questioning the validity of the subject, only the way it was presented. Good idea to double-check an apparently valid subject in the future. This just seemed hopeless as it is/was. - Lucky 6.9 06:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)