Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) buffbills7701 12:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers)[edit]

Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:GNG as written. Little in the text suggests importance outside the fictional setting, and two refs of dubious reliability are 404 anyway. CC editors who expressed interest in this article before: User:DGG, User:Wellspring, User:Kross Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic has great notability. See, for example, Masculinity in Fiction and Film: Representing Men in Popular Genres, 1945-2000; Rumors of War and Infernal Machines: Technomilitary Agenda-setting in American and British Speculative Fiction; Literature After Globalization: Textuality, Technology and the Nation-State. See also WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you care to provide page numbers and quotations from those works that prove they discuss this concept? Because the very existence of those books, neither of which mentions this topic in the name, is not proof of anything. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, per WP:BEFORE, such work is your responsibility: "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." The search links above will assist you in this now but you may need to tweak the search keywords for the best result. Warden (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • @User:Colonel Warden: My search didn't show anything that looked significant. If you disagree, I ask you again - please provide qutations and page numbers (and then add those relevant content to the article). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • What search did you do? If you provide details, I can perhaps show you where you're going wrong. Warden (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge cited information into Starship Troopers and the other works of fiction discussed. Heinlein's book is about the Mobile Infantry, and beyond that about military culture, tactics, and values. The versions of MI in the other, much less important--they don't read 'em in West Point, works can be discussed in their articles; and the differences between each and the original also there. I object to an article which puts all versions of MI together on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:Fancruft. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They do occur in all the works, though the book is the more important. There is enough commonality that they can be discussed together. The comparison of how the different works handle them can be done without OR, as there are sources What I would object to on the grounds of fancruft. is articles that put each version in a separate article o (Fancruft of course is a WP word meaning MoreDetailThanIAmInterestedIn, and is so subjective that it's really not an argument. In many cases we can if we really try find sufficient RS support for a great deal more detail than almost anyone here would like to include, so the only way we keep it out under the GNG is by interpreting RS in such a way as to call whatever is available in not reliable, or, if it unquestionably reliable, as an academic book would be, indiscriminate because it discusses all the elements of the work. . We would do much better to find some sort of rule for how much detail to use in the different classes of fiction, based both on the amount of material available and the importance of the fiction. (such a proposal by another ed. failed a few years ago because those who didn't like it prevented consensus by raising objections over each possible demarcation points, instead of just saying to leave it to judgment in the individual case DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make reasonable points. I really think the overall topic of MI across all works is a product of original research, even if sources compare each version to the original. Putting them together is OR. I kind of see fancruft as more like something addressed only to serious fans and/or players of the work in question, not so much about the amount of detail. And BTW I also would argue against an article solely on Heinlein's MI saying that we don't need two articles one starting: "Starship Troopers is a science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein about the Mobile Infantry, a fictional future elite military force." znd the other: "The Mobile Infantry is a fictional future elite military force which is the subject of Robert Heinlein's science fiction novel Starship Troopers." They are really the same thing, in effect here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:DGG: Interesting, but we really need reliable source to prove that this concept is notable. At present the article has nada, and nothing specific has been presented here (as in: no quotations, no page numbers, no works that discuss it clearly in title). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's really about lack of sources. To me it's more about people not being able to understand that there is a difference between one of the most important books of the Twentieth Century and some movie, TV show, or video game. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I understand it, Heinlein's conception of the Mobile Infantry was a highly influential early description of use of a Powered exoskeleton in warfare. Many of the references that discuss such new "battlesuits" directly mention the Mobile Infantry suits in Heinlein's novel. For example: http://voices.yahoo.com/army-developing-super-combat-suit-special-12358323.html , http://www.hammock.com/marines-meet-the-hulc/ . If other people are making such references in their everyday lives, I think we should have an article that explains what they are. RomanSpa (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reduce the article to Stub-class due to most of the content being unreferenced fancruft. Coverage about the mobile infantry from Starship Troopers needs to be from thematic analysis. For example, The Science Fiction Handbook states, "Rico... is assigned to the mobile infantry, which many consider a lowly post, but which the text [Starship Troopers] presents as the heart of the military and as the branch of the military in which service is the most honorable of all." It also mentions that in the film, women are part of the mobile infantry and are treated as equal to men (whereas in Heinlein's book it is just men). This source and the ones mentioned above (especially Rumors of War and Infernal Machines) can be used for this topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to add some content after the AfD has passed. Per WP:NNC, there is general agreement that this topic and Bug (Starship Troopers) are notable regardless of the shape of their articles. There is no obligation to improve the articles to argue for keeping in AfDs, though it can be done to demonstrate an article's viability to an initial consensus of deleting it. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Argument for profoundly weak, given the early sci fi infantry concept that has lived on in other media. In addition to the books and movies, Starship Troopers spawned an Avalon-Hill bookcase game that dealt with the concept and tactical commentary--I'll see if I can dig it up later and find a quote or two. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mobile_Infantry_(Starship_Troopers)&oldid=1075699524"