Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tone 10:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fictional organization, no indication this passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete However I think the gaming section should be merged too Starship Troopers (franchise). Govvy (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Total fancruft; non-notable, per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ITSCRUFT; JNN; PERNOM. Bingo!  Andrew D. (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's a valid argument. And no, your own WP:REFBOMB of vaguely related things doesn't count.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The topic is doubly notable as there is plenty of coverage of both the fictional concept and of its influence on modern military, as high-tech infantry follows the fictional precedent, like many other SF concepts. The only issue is whether it would be more sensible to merge to mobile infantry as the general broad topic, but that page is under attack too.  A selection of sources follows:
 * Nanowarriors: Military nanotechnology and comic books
 * Putting Your Young Men in the Mud
 * Heinlein's Starship Troopers An Exercise in Rehabilitation
 * Starship Troopers, Galactic Heroes, Mercenary Princes: the Military and its Discontents in Science Fiction
 * Teach phenomenology the bomb: Starship Troopers, the technologized body, and humanitarian warfare
 * Starship Troopers' Influence on the American Military
 * Eyekon: augmented reality for battlefield soldiers
 * Exoskeletons for warriors of the future
 * Imag(in)ing Tomorrow's Wars and Weapons
 * A Strike Back at the Empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs) 02:19, November 1, 2019 (UTC)
 * It is sad how many people ignore GNG, and its requirement such as in-depth coverage. I reviewed the first source on your list: and the mobile infantry is mention in passing in a single sentence: "They also point to Robert Heinlein’s novel Starship Troopers (1959), with its vividly depicted powered armor and its heroic (if quasi-fascistic) mobile infantry"... sorry, this is just 'google hits' list of sources. Please tell us which, if any, provide in-depth coverage, instead of being mentions in passing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  00:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is sad how many people misrepresent and misunderstand GNG. This does not require "in-depth coverage".  It does not use the phrase and so this is something that Piotrus has imagined or invented.  What it expects is significant coverage and this is not the same thing because it "does not need to be the main topic of the source material".  What is required is that it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content".  The source in question provides this, being brief but succinct and so verifying numerous facts about the topic such as the name of the author and the MO of the MI.  As it appears in a scholarly paper about the general concept of hi-tech soldiers in fact and fiction, it serves us well by placing Heinlein's mobile infantry in this wider context.  By itself, the source is not enough for an article but it isn't by itself; it is one of many sources which cover the topic.  Taken together, these give us ample material to support an article and so we're good.  So, Piotrus's objection is refuted and the validity of these sources is established.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You purposely left out "more than a trivial mention." When looking at the one source in particular, it's clear that the topic is part of a laundry list of similar items being used as examples of that particular topic. It is given no major focus, and there is no commentary on it. That is the definition of a trivial mention. The source has no use at all in the article, and that you list such a basic source gives absolutely no confidence that your link dump has anything of value. TTN (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To get a clearer consensus
 * Delete - Non-notable topic. The above sources should be discounted unless the user can actually take the time to show how they provide significant coverage. Laundry lists of sources do nothing for a discussion when the user is simply using the above links and grabbing any source that seem reliable. It's no better than a bot could do. TTN (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this was a snow keep previously the nominator waited 6 years to renominate. That is dedication to a cause!. Sources WP:NEXIST to show notability and so this is a keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What sources? The 10 listed above seem to be a google hits list only, no evidence of in-depth coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Starship Troopers. That's where this content belongs.4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as its meaning is obvious from the name, and it currently just lists appearance info. No prejudice against redirecting it (for more context explanation) to Starship Troopers or Terran Federation (Starship Troopers) (should that even be a stand-alone article?). The given sources generally appear appropriate to improve the setting and influence of the franchise/film article, but not this fictional element. – sgeureka t•c 11:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is no sourced content on the page currently worth preserving, and its a fairly unlikely search term. The entry on the Mobile infantry disambiguation page, pointing to the main Starship Troopers article, is a far more likely way for people to get to where they need to go.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2019 (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.