Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Rather than "keep", because some of the "keep" opinions are really rather superficial and not much more than votes. That said, this is mostly a dispute about how to organize content about melee combat of both the tournament and the military variety, and that can probably be achieved by discussion and such merging/redirecting as may be required outside of a deletion discussion.  Sandstein  19:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melee

[edit]
Melee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As pointed out in the recently closed move request,[1] this shows no signs of being a valid encyclopedic topic. The information present right now does not extend beyond a dictionary definition with the basic meaning "(disorganized) military encounter fought at close range". There is some coatracking of military melees, but that could basically extend to virtually any battle fought with hand-to-hand weapons. The article has been tagged since 2009 and had no relevant sources until the addition of an aerial combat "definition"[2] which merely substitutes infantry weapons for aircraft.

I should add that I've written and read extensively about early modern naval warfare (galley, galley tactics, Mary Rose, battle of Öland, Vasa (ship), Kronan (ship), archipelago fleet, hemmema) and never encountered material on just melees that would merit a separate article. Even in literature specifically discussing medieval infantry tactics, like Rogers (ed. 2007),[3] have I seen any meaningful discussion that could be used to build up the topic.

Peter Isotalo 20:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. I've done some emergency repair work on the article. Could you have a look at it when you get a chance and give me your thoughts on the changes? Thanks. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might be relevant to this discussion that in SCA armoured combat, which is now registered as a sport in some countries, the melee is a section of the competitions with its own set of rules and regulations. See this. w.carter-Talk 03:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ceannlann, you added one source that was a self-published and another that merely used the word "melee" (and did not discuss it in any way). I have not contested that the word exist or that it is in use, but rather that it is too vague to be a stand-alone article.
W.carter, I supported making this a dabpage, but this was rejected. The medieval sport is listed there, and so could the SCA article. But this was deemed unacceptable. The article has been around for over a decade and still hasn't gotten beyond a mere dicdef. I don't see the point of waiting longer for basic improvement. The onus of improvement lies with those who insist this is a valid article that is more important than anything else called "melee".
Peter Isotalo 15:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the best thing for this content would be to have been written originally in Combat as a section and grown into a spin-outable article, however it is currently here now and deleting it would likely be detrimental to the encyclopedia long term. Plenty of secondary sources covering "melee" just need the article to be improved not deleted. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been around for 12 years without attracting any encyclopedic content. It has been tagged as a problematic article for half of that time. The concern here is that there is no relevant content to add. What makes you believe otherwise? Peter Isotalo 09:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't delete articles for being poorly written, we delete articles if they should be deleted. the claim that this is encyclopedic doesn't persuade me when other encyclopedias have articles on the topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean this? It's about a form of tournament, not warfare. This article clearly isn't about that. If you know of multiple relevant refs, it would be helpful if you share them. If nothing else, it would help those who want to improve the article. Peter Isotalo 17:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So make a dab page if you want to clear up the ambiguity or consider the possibility that we (or britanica) got it wrong. the word "Melee" has multiple uses that the article can flush out. I believe every article is innocent until proven guilty, it's not my job to prove that it is notable, it's your job to prove that it isn't. and I do a search at the school library and multiple scholarly articles pop up, I do a search on google news and articles show up. it's notable. I don't have the time or energy to fix every article in AFD that is notably poorly written. But I do have the ability to do a preliminary search to look at what the source material has to offer. if you want to get this deleted make a new argument besides "not notable". Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you arguing for notability? No one questions the "notability" if a word. This is an issue with what essentially is a dictionary definition. The request has been for a encyclopedically relevant definition. That the word is used is not enough on it's own. That's attestation, not a definition of a topic. The page is being held in limbo here: it can't be the dabpage (see recent move request) and no one will explain how it can be improved. And somehow it's on me to figure it out myself because I point out some very obvious problems. Peter Isotalo 06:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not cleanup WP:DINC if you don't like the way that article looks I'm sorry, wikipedia is a work in progress WP:WIP the article provides more than a definition. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're going in circles here. I'm putting forth the argument that this is mostly a dictionary definition with no viable future as an article on a unambiguously defined topic. We have coverage of medieval tournament melees, close combat, several games called "melee"-something. And we have melee (disambiguation) (which this apparently can't be). It's clearly not a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that can be fixed with just "cleanup". The article has been around for over a decade and has gone from an obvious dicdef[4] to pseudo-dabpage[5] and on to a hybrid of both,[6] (but limited strictly to (mostly pre-modern) warfare). And now you and Andrew Davidson are claiming it's actually also about what's describe in tournament (medieval)#Melee. WP:WIP applies to articles that are sub-standard, but have a chance of relevant expansion. I'm arguing it hasn't a chance of relevant expansion because there simply isn't a strict definition of "melee" in military history that goes beyond a general word for "close-up, usually confused fighting of some sort". This ought to be extremely easy to disprove. Instead you're saying there are sources, that you've found them, but that you're simply not interested in showing them. Peter Isotalo 11:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not require a "strict" definition. Warfare is, by its nature, chaotic and so descriptions of it by particular authors will not have the rigour of a mathematical text. But the general concept of the melee as being a mass combat in which the participants become mixed up rather than being in formal lines seems well-established. The nomination says that there is no coverage of this in the naval context but a quick search soon disproves this - see The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare, for example. I have produced several sources now which discuss the melee in detail and it would be quite feasible to develop the article from such material. Andrew D. (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
go with a merger proposal if you want it to go into one of the other melee articles. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite familiar with the term "melee tactics". I specifically mentioned it in the move request, even. It's a specialized, well-defined concept in naval history. This is evident if you read Cambridge history you just cited a bit more carefully.[7] (see p. 413). The usage is completely different from when infantry melees are described (pp. 18, 41). I don't know who first defined the concept, but it's present in Jan Glete's Navies and Nations (1993, pp. 173-78). It was formulated specifically to contrast to the tactics that preceded the line of battle and the use of broadside gunnery. The latter has been analyzed in detail by N. A. M. Rodger (Mariner's Mirror, Mariner's Mirror 82 (1996), pp. 301-24) and in Safeguard of the Sea (1997).
If if you believe this shallow use of sources is appropriate, I'm sure you can establish articles about any commonly used words. This is what we normally call synthesis, though. This looks like some strongly opinionated argumentation by me. Especially assuming that I'm too influenced by "modern re-imaginings in movies and games" rather than expecting greater accuracy in a Wikipedia article. Further discussion here at the AfD seem pretty pointless since you've already made up your mind. I assume that any further disagreements will have to focus on content and be conducted at talk:melee. I must say I'm quite disappointed in the lack for reciprocity and the clear expressions of bad faith and presumptuous opinion.
Btw, I'm strongly opposed to a general merger of any and all warfare topics that happen to contain the word "melee". It's going to amount to a clear example of WP:COATRACK.
Peter Isotalo 17:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't accept that a naval melee is "completely different" from a land melee. The details may be different but the fundamental concept is the same and that's why the same word is used. This is exactly the situation envisaged by WP:CONCEPTDAB – a broad concept which has particular applications. In such cases, it is helpful to the reader to give an outline of the matter and refer him to more detailed cases as appropriate. Deleting the page to make the word into a redlink would be quite unhelpful and disruptive because it would leave the reader at a loss. As for your disappointment, you should have expected dissent following the move discussion. You have sought yet more discussion and now you have it. Be careful what you wish for ... :) Andrew D. (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't discussion so much as insisting that user opinion should trump source content. When sources don't actually fit the descriptions, you apparently make them fit. And top it off with condescending insinuations.
Peter Isotalo 05:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have presented sources and it seems that Peter rejects them as not fitting with his personal opinion as the basis for the rejection. From this, it appears that he has some personal definition of what a melee is or should be. Is this "strict definition" derived from some source? If so, what is it? Let's consider another example: Movement, Manifesto, Melee. This has a chapter on artistic melees, which were provocative violence at exhibitions. This is obviously different in some ways from the melees of medieval knights or Nelson's band of brothers, but it seems similar in a fundamental way – being a chaotic combat. If we present this context in our article and refer the reader to Modernism then it seems likely that the reader will feel that they have learnt something new. This is my vision for the page — presenting the various ways that chaotic combats have been characterised as melees and then referring the reader to more detailed pages. This way of doings things is described at WP:CONCEPTDAB and it may help to quote examples from that:

    Particle (previously a disambiguation page) is a broad and abstract concept used to address many different ideas in physics, generally relating to small units from which larger things are composed. Although there are many different kinds of particles at levels ranging from the subatomic to the macroscopic, the broad concept is properly susceptible to explanation in an article. Truly unrelated meanings, such as Particle (band), are only presented at Particle (disambiguation).

Football may refer to one of a number of team sports which all involve, to varying degrees, kicking a ball with the foot. Although the word "football" can apply to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears, all of these variations share some common elements and can be traced to a common origin. Thus, the history and development of the general concept of football can be explained in its own article.

Are we having a discussion yet? Andrew D. (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is purely semantical. Particle and football are indeed broad, but at least have easily justifiable connections that can be found in sources. No such connections exist in this case. They are all being made on a case-by-case basis by individual users like yourself. There's "my vision", readers will "feel that they have learnt something new", it "seems similar"; it's all WP:ILIKEIT. The argument about "artistic melees" is the perfect illustration of this. You're by now making the argument for duplicate dabpage.
Peter Isotalo 06:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of effort, has anyone read the only source used for a historical definition (Arquilla & Ronfeldt 2000)? It's clearly written by researchers who are not historians and have some pretty strange and antiquated ideas about history overall. Here's a pretty alarming quote from the article:
This chaotic form of war [the authors' definition of "melee"] persisted into the historical era and dominated even among the first of the Asiatic empires of the Sumerians, Akkadians, as well as others. In Europe, during the dark feudal age after the fall of Rome, a period of technical stagnation and social dissolution, European warfare once again reverted to the melee—seemingly wiping out the gains in massing and maneuvering that constituted hard-won progress in military affairs made over many centuries, including by the Greeks and the Romans.
It's so far removed from consensus in modern historical research that it basically amounts to editorializing. Or a serious case of WP:UNDUE. It's questionable whether this even counts as a reliable source in a context of history. If this is the best we can do, the article needs to be converted to a dabpage.
Peter Isotalo 11:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The melee would start with a cavalry charge. The essential difference between it and the joust is that the joust was single combat while the melee was a mass combat. Such tournaments were quite violent affairs and not very different from battles. Your misunderstanding seems to be a product of modern re-imaginings in movies and games. As there is some confusion about what the concept means, it is good to have a page which explains the history of the matter, per WP:CONCEPTDAB. We should not rely on dictionaries to do this work for us because they do not link so conveniently into our web of content and their focus is upon language rather than meaning - etymology, grammar, pronunciation, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as above. Could it be improved? All articles can. Deletion would be a major overreaction. Also, note the canvassing [8] being done by the submitter. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was the proposer of the above-referenced move, but I in no way think that this is an invalid subject. Sure, it could be converted into a broad concept article, but in its current state, it's definitely a valid topic for an encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a dicdef with pretensions. The formal concept of melee in tournaments already has its own article, so what's left? This article distinguishes several virtually identical meanings, but combat melees are already covered in Swarming (military), Combat and linked articles and cavalry melees are covered in Cavalry tactics, leaving just some vague words about air combat which could easily be added into the article on that topic. If this article was "fixed" it would end up merely as a dab page - and we already have one of those. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that this is a valid topic for an encyclopaedia to cover. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which topic, though? Close combat with handheld weapons, the medieval tournament competition, ship combat, dogfighting or the "artistic melee"? Peter Isotalo 10:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is indeed a valid topic, which is why it is covered in plenty of articles (do a search) and has a dab page. It doesn't need another, especially not such an unreferenced, jumbled mess. If you take away what's already covered elsewhere there's nothing left! Andyjsmith (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melee&oldid=1068852783"