Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile infantry (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 keep. Tone 11:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Mobile infantry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a proper disambiguation page, just examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I am inclined to keep this as it sounds like a perfectly valid search term. I see nothing wrong with having this disambiguation page and I see no harm in keeping it. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many years after its creation I still think it's a fine disambig. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any issue with the page. Jeb3  Talk at me here What I've Done 14:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Starship Troopers per WP:PTM. Disambiguations are not supposted to be indexes of related topics. "A disambiguation page is not a search index." The only place where "mobile infantry" truly appears is Starship Troopers.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect on two counts. Firstly, these are not "related topics" but actual meanings of mobile infantry. Secondly, dead wrong that only Heinlein's fictional force takes this name; the Military Review uses the term, giving it some official credence; also in here,here and here.  Much as I like Heinlein, he doesn't have a monopoly on the term. SpinningSpark 22:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DABCONCEPT, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it and not a disambiguation page." (bolding mine) Whether an article could be written about infantry that happens to be more mobile than "leg" infantry is a separate question, but what we have here is not "perfectly valid disambiguation". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't have it both ways. If it is questionable whether a broad concept article could be written then DABCONCEPT doesn't apply, and if DABCONCEPT does apply then the page should be converted to a stub.  Either way, deletion is not the answer. SpinningSpark 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, perfectly valid disambiguation. SpinningSpark 22:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting after withdrawn close

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a proper nomination as it states no policy-based reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The page has been converted from a dab page since the nomination was made, thus completely invalidating the original nomination rationale (although personally, I'm still inclinded to think it was better off as a dab). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Close The nominator has edited the article to make the nomination invalid. Poor conduct. Thincat (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that happened after the AfD was closed, but before relisting per the DRV result. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've struck and apologise. I hadn't realised that. Thincat (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The recent changes don't seem significant. What's more relevant is the more discursive version in the page's history.  Re-establishing this as a broad topic would be the most sensible outcome as this is a significant strand of military history.  For example, the German blitzkrieg doctrine started with its revolutionary infantry tactics of WW1, using Stosstruppen to restore mobility to the battlefield. Andrew D. (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You should probably open a discussion before doing that. The history you are looking at is the article deleted in the previous AfD.  It was restored by User:BD2412, very probably in error during a history merge. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are multiple discussions currently – at least two AfDs and a DRV. Starting yet another discussion would be excessive per WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no recollection of the circumstances at issue here. bd2412  T 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The current version seems a perfectly valid article, although additional source citations would not come amiss. The previous version seemed to me to be a perfectly valid DAB page,if an unusual one. Which is batter can be discussed on the talk page after this is closed. A straight list article on this topic could also be done. The original nom did not list any policy-based reason for deletion, and I see none now. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I stated before, it is not a valid dab page. Entries must be referred to as/synonymous with "mobile infantry", and none that are listed qualify. Examples are specifically excluded by WP:DABCONCEPT, as noted above. As for my reason for deletion, I question whether the term is officially recognized/defined, as opposed to something like "fast car", a term that crops all the time, but is just as unworthy of an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't take such a narrow view of what can be a valid DAB page in exceptional circumstances, and I think an argument could be made that each of the linked terms is sufficiently synonymous with "mobile infantry" that an unusual DAB page could be permitted to exist, and helps readers. As for WP:DABCONCEPT you can't have it both ways. As I belive was suggested above, if there is a potentially valid article about the concept of   "mobile infantry" in general (not just in the RAH novel) then the current version is a start on such an article and should not be deleted. If that is not a valid article topic, then  DABCONCEPT does not apply. In neither case is deletion the proper answer, as per WP:ATD. Even if it is decided that neither a DAB nor an article is appropriate, a redirect to the articel about the concept in teh RAH novel seems useful, and that does not need an AfD. I still see no policy-based reason to delete, and certainly none was mentioend in the original nomination. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Each of the entries is a subset of "mobile infantry", not a synonym. A tank is a motor vehicle. Does that make them synonyms? Again, where is there anything more than passing uses of the phrase. No mentions at all (or anything even remotely close) in Infantry Branch (United States) or Infantry of the British Army, for example. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment A WP:BEFORE search as to whether this could be a valid article topic brought up only Starship Trooper articles, but a newspapers.com search shows the term "mobile infantry" was in use a lot during World War II. I could not find any articles in the immediate which would denote any sort of notability to a larger article, but I don't think it's impossible. I generally agree with the nominator this is not a valid disambiguation page, looking at both the current version and the page originally nominated for deletion, but I also think it's possible that it could be. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator does not present a rationale for deletion. And this is a perfectly valid disambiguation page.Lightburst (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep seems like a valid disamb page to me. A valid search term would bring people here to see links to the various articles they could be looking for.   D r e a m Focus  21:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.