Talk:Professional warrior

Professional warrior was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE

You would not expect a random bit of information about aztec culture under such a heading. Move to either aztec, warrior, soldier or mercenary. dab 07:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Verify and move or merge it as appropriate (probably to Aztec or Aztec warrior).  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  10:17, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: The amount of information is tiny (one sentence), and it's polluted by an untrue conclusion. What the article essentially says is that the Aztecs had regiments, not that they had "professional warriors" or that they were, especially, like "special forces" (presumably US Special Forces).  The Aztecs designated service into two types.  That's all that's said.  Well, so did every army (or more types than that), and there is a difference between a warrior and a professional warrior, who makes his living solely as a soldier.  Geogre 13:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Still there is information I couldn't find elsewhere in Wikipedia which should be kept somewhere if verifiable. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  08:56, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to some Aztec article, merge the histories, and Delete. --Improv 20:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The remark about "special forces" just seems wrong, and lacks citation. The rest of this is already in Aztec (except maybe the remark about distinct uniforms). Doesn't seem worth redirecting this irrelevant title to Aztec: if anything, a redirect to mercenary would represent a more common use of the title. Delete -- Jmabel | Talk
 * Redirect to mercenary. -Sean Curtin 01:12, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 14:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)