Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobility kill


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mobility kill

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Listed per WP:DICDEF, being basically a reproduction of the wiktionary definition with little additional content. The term is US military jargon, and I can't see the article expanding beyond stub status into anything more than the current dictionary definition. EyeSerene talk 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I can easily see this developing beyond a stub. It is currently unreferenced in the article, but if this is something that is actually a means of performing combat, then various examples of merits or drawback of the method, as experienced in action, would easily take this beyond a mere dictionary article. It isn't even completely dictionary-like now. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not a “method”, it's one of many self-evident events when operating military vehicles in combat.  As far as I know, there are no books and articles about “Mobility Kill”, and it's not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article.  If there's anything at all worth saving, it should be merged into armoured warfare. —Michael Z. 2009-02-20 19:23 z 
 * Keep This article was transwikied to Wiktionary in September 2008 and converted to a soft redirect on 29 December. The very same day, someone changed the capitalization on the Wiktionary entry, breaking the redirect. This apparently led a different user to restore the article on 15 February. I suggest restoring the proper Wiktionary redirect. Rklear (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick search turned up several  sources using the term, in regard to  offensive capabilities, defensive capabilities, and simulations. I believe the article could be fleshed out regarding the value of such actions (e.g. specific weapons designed for mobility-kill), protection against such actions (e.g. defense systems, tank designs, etc.) and simulated behavior (e.g. use in "war games", video games, etc.). –   7 4   18:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Usage of the term simply proves the term is in use; the sources are not about mobility kills, but about the means to achieve them. We could use those sources to add that some weapons are designed to cause mobility kills, but anything more would be to wander off-focus and run afoul of WP:SYNTH. Restoration of the soft redirect per Rklear makes sense though. EyeSerene talk 08:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree; including references to analysis of weapons and defenses in regard to mobility-kills would be *exactly* what would expand this from a dictionary entry to an encyclopedia article. The only way this material "wanders off-focus" is if you insist on keeping this article as a dictionary reference, which seems a rather biased viewpoint given your nomination above. According to WP:DICTIONARY, this article should be about the concept mobility-kill, and how it applies, not just a definition of mobility-kill. Ultimately, the question you've raised is whether this article can be expanded beyond a stub; I believe the sources above are sufficient to demonstrate that it can. –  7 4   15:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I may have explained myself poorly ;) I agree that the article, to qualify as a stand-alone Wikipedia entry, should be about the concept of mobility kills. However, the difficulty is that we have no sources that discuss mobility kills as a concept. Many of the mentions of 'mobility kill' in the sources you've provided are in passing, or in relation to something else, and would properly belong in articles about those subjects (ie the article on the weapon system or doctrine being discussed in the source). We need to be careful that, in trawling sources for enough information to build an article, we don't stretch the article beyond its scope or produce something original. EyeSerene talk 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, there's no limit to the number of articles that can cite a specific reference. I agree that references to "mobility kill" are thinly-spread, but even a single paragraph can provide a citation for the article. With the currently suggested sources, this article will never achieve FA status, but I still believe it can be improved beyond a dictionary stub. The key, as you pointed out, is to refrain from synthesizing multiple references into original research. Constructing an article without synthesis might prove impossible, but I think the article deserves the benefit of the doubt until we have that proof; besides, having an extra (valid) stub waiting for expansion is of no real harm to Wikipedia. –  7 4   21:24, 24 February 2009 (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.