Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British army combat smock sizes


 * 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   delete. Courcelles 05:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

British army combat smock sizes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not established for over a year, just two "references" (one just says "The British Soldier In The 20th Century")  Puffin  Let's talk! 10:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic on the one hand; fails GNG on the other. Carrite (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep "The British Soldier In The 20th Century" is a series of books about British uniforms, e.g. Airborne Uniforms. There are many publications of this sort as military modellers are as obsessive about accuracy as Wikipedia editors.  The article just needs some spit and polish per WP:IMPERFECT. Warden (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The OR tag is probably wrong, since it appears to cite a book as source. But I doubt this is a notable enough subject to need a WP article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite; this is seriously obscure and not notable. In my experience books written for modelers about the appearance and nature of military uniforms do not provide any information about the sizes this clothing was issued in (as this is irrelevant to the modelers' need), and waving at a book on Amazon without demonstrating that it actually provides detail on this topic is not useful. The only sources which typically cover this kind of topic are military-issued manuals which are written for use by quartermasters and (to a lesser extent) serving soldiers. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The nominator didn't seem to understand the reference to The British Soldier In The 20th Century and so I explained it. That is not just one but a large series of books.  The page in question is not just about the sizing but also the pattern, material and other aspects of the various combat smocks.  This is exactly the sort of material which you'd expect such books to contain and the fact they are so numerous demonstrates the notability of the topic.  The title of article seems to be what the delete !voters here are getting hung up on but that's just a detail which may easily be addressed by move or merger.  There seems to be no good reason why we wouldn't want to consolidate this with articles like Smock Windproof DPM, Denison Smock, Battle Dress, British Army uniform, &c.  Our editing policy is to build in this way rather than to carelessly discard.  Warden (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That reference is only being used to support a statement about the existence and general design of a type of smock, which isn't really the main subject of the article. Nick-D (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - far too specific an article about a non-notable topic. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.