Talk:Iran-Iraq War

RFD discussion: April–August 2017
There are many wars in human history, why should we include this one? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dictionaries often consider wars and other historical events to be under their purview. Why did you nominate this and not World War Two? If you accept that we should keep that one, then you accept we should keep this as well. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I chose not to nominate World War Two mainly because of notoriety. I mean, just skim through the list of wars on Wikipedia. For instance, there are hundreds of wars and battles which have taken place on Swedish soil alone. Keeping the discussed term sets quite a dangerous future standard. PS: who can forget the War of the Golden Stool? We definitely need to add this one! --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Iran–Iraq War was an important conflict, even if it didn't happen to affect you. But notoriety is not the standard by which we judge these things. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hold on a minute, who said it didn't affect me? I never downplayed the seriousness of said war. It wasn't my intention to bring this up for discussion in order to evaluate the severity of wars and make anyone around here feel bad. I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the greater community before we had a user who intended on adding a list of wars and other conflicts which might be pushing POV. --Robbie SWE (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * delete not dictionary material. If there is a dictionary that includes specific wars as terms I'd like to see it but I haven't come across such a dictionary yet. World War II was not nominated so far and "we have this, so we must keep that too" has never been a valid rationale for keeping any term. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries including at least some wars can be found in, including Merriam-Webster. Inductive or extrapolative arguments certainly are used for names of specific entities, governed by WT:NSE, and I don't see why they should not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep with the use of the lemming heuristic; the term is present in Collins. The lemming heuristic was discussed in Beer parlour/2014/January, where it received a broad support with some opposition. For names of specific entities such as names of wars, WT:NSE allows editor discretion. As a broadening of checking, finds "Thirty Years' War" term in AHD and Collins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not dictionary material. --Barytonesis (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per . — Eru·tuon 01:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * RFD kept: no consensus for deletion: 3:3 (keep:delete). --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know it's been decided, but (in case this gets reopened) can't see the harm in keeping at least the wars that references have often been made to in the last few decades. If you would allow the top 1000 or even top 10.000 (in numbers of references in English media) it could still be managed by Wiktionary with ease. And somebody would still have to bother to actually add any. Everyone probably agrees we shouldn't delete WW2 or WW1. It would seem hard to figure out where to draw the line, but if you simply allow the top 1000 or top 10.000 you'll hardly ever have to discuss it. Entries should not be very long though and refer to Wikipedia for more information. W3ird N3rd (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)