Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranger boots


 * 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   redirect to Combat boot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ranger boots

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails several core policies: WP:V, WP:OR. The few references that are cited don't very the material that they claim to support. For example, the claim that they were "first true modern combat boots" claim is not found in two sources cited. CSD#G5 was declined despite the fact that the article was created by a blocked user, using a sock-puppet, and that the editor in question has a history of creating dubious articles at times. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is largely a copy combat boot (also of low quality and frequented by the same sock-puppeteer, but at least the crap is all in one place). The title/terminology of this fork is questionable because I've not seen English sources call the M43 boots "ranger boots", although if the unsourced French Wikipeda article fr:Rangers (chaussure) is to be believed that's the argot they use in French for their copies. Looking at that article, it seems they now apply the term to any combat boots, even those from before WWII, although the terminology is probably post-WWII. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The same sock-puppeteer also created desert combat boot (by forking Chukka boots) although in that case another admin speedily deleted the fork as G5. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The unofficial US term seems to be "double buckle boots". If someone wants to rework the article by looking for sources for that, be my guest. I'm having my hands full cleaning up the firearms articles this sock farm created. I'll leave the boots to someone else. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just "buckle boots" is also used to refer to these. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The single, sourced paragraph can be merged into somewhere else. This never should have been created as its own article.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, with comments - Have had a quick look around. Looking past the (unsurprising) quantity of hits for "RANGER'S BOOTS" (that annoyingly come up even when searching for the phrase "ranger boots" in quotes), it is clear that there are several styles of boot that go by this name. One book states in passing that in the 19th century these were farmer's boots. There's an interesting and detailed description of another version (1920s/30s?) here, which I don't think is a RS as it's someone's memoirs. I see a few hits where the boots worn by skinheads are explicitly called 'Ranger boots', including in The Subcultures Reader, which says in Google preview: "head completely shaved, 20-hole Ranger boots - it's got to be the hardest image possible" (better snippet views for presumably the same quote here. They also appear to be part of safety gear, for firefighters as per this, for general safety and health; and part of the Lebanon army uniform. A detailed 1979 description of YET another style of boot (for hiking) called a Ranger boot, an ad so probably not reliable, but it does explicitly call them Ranger boots. And another for yet another style with felt bottoms, and reference to a "standard style" of Ranger boots. The problem now is that this is obviously a term people will search for - but there is not an obvious single redirect target. I am actually leaning keep, even if the actual article simply becomes an extended disambiguation page to keep track of the different styles of ranger boots with brief explanations, sourcing, etc, and links to the main articles for those other boots. I didn't see any mention of "double buckle boots" in my results trawl, so that's YET another style to add to the list. Mabalu (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a bazillion unrelated designs that were called "ranger boots" at one point or another. This article isn't even about that topic. Show me a source discussing the evolution of the "ranger boot" concept or something like that, or better, use it to actually write a different encyclopedia article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect -- This focuses on a variety of boot used by one army and seeks to argue that others were like it. It would be much better to have it all dealt with in one article, probably combat boot.  It would be legitimate to have a tree of articles, with a series of "main" articles for different types of boot, but this is not the way to go about producing that.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is no clear single redirect target. Ranger boots clearly and demonstrably describe several very different styles of footwear. It's a legitimate search term, but if it is redirected - where should it redirect to, given that several styles have equally strong claims to the name? The problem is that the article is a coathook for a single interpretation, but that is solved by a rewrite and repurposing of the page so that it covers the term and briefly summarises the different styles of boot described as ranger boot with dates and sources, and links to the appropriate articles for each style - which sounds reasonable to me, and actually, I think I could write one up pretty quickly based on the above sources I found. Yes, I know this is only a few steps up from a dictionary definition, but at the same time, it IS a common term which seems pretty widely used, and is something people would look up to see if there was an article on it. Mabalu (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "there is no clear single redirect target". That's why it has to be deleted, or made a WP:DAB at best, although we don't usually do that for terminology in a foreign language. In this case only the French call combat boots "ranger boots" (in fact they call them just "rangers", so the correct title, as per the French wiki, would be rangers (boots)). There are plenty of common English phrases that don't have articles or redirects per WP:NOTDICT. "Everything that was called a ranger boot in one language on Earth" is not passing WP:N or WP:LISTN from what I see. In order to make a DAB, it would have to disambiguate between notable things. Your examples fail WP:PRODUCT by a country mile. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  23:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This isn't a dictionary, there's little discussion of this as a separate term in reliable sources (as opposed to websites selling boots), and anything unique here could be re-added to the Combat boot article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A redirect to Combat boot (and possible merge of anything worth keeping) seems pretty obvious to me... Ansh666 02:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I'd also be ok with a redirect to combat boot. Article as it exists fails on a number of levels and creates a distinction that really shouldn't exist. Intothatdarkness 14:01, 30 August 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.