Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strongpoint


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Strongpoint

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOT Derek Andrews (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:DICDEF, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." The topic is notable, being documented in detail in sources such as the Combat Leader's Field Guide or Soviet Field Fortifications.  The page is a new one and should therefore be developed rather than deleted, per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep According to this document (US Army Field Manual), "strongpoint" is another term for "battle position". However this source differentiates between strongpoint and battle position as different terms. It was in use in the 1920s in the this source. There's an Army Corp of Engineer newspaper(?) called StrongPoint (unrelated probably). There are a lot more sources with Google Books search . I think Andrew is correct it would better to give it a chance to develop given the available sourcing. Note that "Strong points" was previously listed at List_of_military_tactics - if not Keep, worst case looks like fortification for a redirect. --  Green  C  17:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:GNG-notable military concept. See books here, here, here; see also sources and discussion above. The nominator should be more familiar with WP:BEFORE. -- cyclopia speak! 08:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete "Strongpoint" is a generic military term with no fixed definition at all so this is a dictionary definition The term basically means a relatively strong defensive position which acts to buttress nearby weaker defensive positions (or an area which is poorly suited to defensive tactics), but there's no fixed definition of what a "strongpoint" is. For instance, a "strong point" can be a two man light machine gun team in a foxhole supporting a squad of men in nearby foxholes armed with rifles or an huge underground fortress complex in the Maginot Line. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Strongpoint" is a generic military term with no fixed definition at all so this is a dictionary definition. The logic there is flawed. A topic doesn't need a "fixed defintion", that is why we have the multiple POV policy. For example some of these sources do show strongpoint has a "fixed" definition (not just a general term), but that fixed definition may change depending on the source. There are multiple POVs over time and place. Finally the strong WP:GNG evidence shows this topic is notable, while DICDEF is more of a content level essay and AfD is a topic level discussion. -- Green  C  02:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I see its listed in the regular dictionary. So this is a real thing.  Listing significant military strongpoints throughout history would be a good improvement for the article.  Already got the one in the famous Greek battle listed there.  556 Wikipedia articles use the word "strongpoint".  I'll see what I can add to the article.   D r e a m Focus  01:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Nick-D points out above, this is, in fact, a WP:DICDEF. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep A military strongpoint is a quite specific thin, discussed in any number of books on tactics.  DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * I'm rather conflicted about relisting this. It's quite possible I should have just closed this as keep, but the arguments that this is a dictdef seem pretty strong to me, so I'll just give people another week to work on this.   Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are suppose to judge consensus, not cast a supervote based on your personal opinion, nor stretch out the debate longer just to hope more people who agree with you show up and comment.   D r e a m Focus  00:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Lobbying users to "work on" a certain POV isn't very fair at all. RoySmith why don't you just make a !vote if you have a strong opinion that is not supported by current consensus, as you correctly noted. -- Green  C  02:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Andrew and DGG; this is a concept amenable to encyclopedic discussion, and the article is not innately a mere dictionary definiton. Having said that, I think the admin's decision to relist this was a reasonable exercise of discretion, since articulate arguments had been offered on both sides and the numerical !vote at the time was 5 to 3, not an overwhelming margin. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: it's a real and important concept that (as far as I know) isn't covered by other Wikipedia articles, and is amenable to being covered in an encyclopedic fashion. Orser67 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - This feels like a dictionary definition and I really don't think it is expandable. That said, I'm not sure that deletion would improve the encyclopedia and can see an argument for an IAR keep. Carrite (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2014 (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.