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 delete. ST47 (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle bag (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 page has been left without any citations for over 2 years and does not discuss anything that isn't better explained in another article. Lotusbloom (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge. While the new sources make for some reference of the term none of them seem to describe the bag beyond being slang for any other common bag so I would still lean towards deleting this page and adding that the slang term added to another page so as not to add clutter. Lotusbloom (talk • contribs) 14:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking the merger idea as the description of the bag has grown increasingly vague. --Lotusbloom (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lotusbloom should please strike their !vote per WP:DISCUSSAFD, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Andrew D. (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striked redundant vote as per rules --Lotusbloom (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A widely available product from numerous manufacturers. Clearly, its use has gone way beyond the military. Of course we should have an article. SpinningSpark 18:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking that comment. On reflection, I am nowhere near as certain that this is any more than a "sum of parts" phrase. SpinningSpark 09:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can someone please cite an example of what it looks like in it's military application since that is what the bulk of the article discusses? When searching for "battle bag" the only results I get is for the brand of civilian pocketed satchel bags by Blackhawk and the original article. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the term so maybe I am missing something but as far as I can tell it is just a brand of satchels that has apparently become an generic name for a specific style of satchel bags. If that is the case it seems like it should be merged with the satchel article rather than having it's own page.Lotusbloom (talk • contribs) 23:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem here is that I can find nothing at all that confirms the existence of any such military equipment. (It is noteworthy in that regard to observe that the article's claim about PECOC is rather undermined by the fact that PECOC was replaced several years ago. Its successor, Project VIRTUS, has no such item documented in anything that I can find published.) Moreover, none of the sources cited by Eastmain actually document a thing by this name. They are all passing mentions of people referring to, and not even documenting, other things (a duffel bag in one case, for example, and a backpack and a purse in two others) using a slang term, in a couple of the cases a nonce slang term. Even the one military source is a fictionalized account, using slang to describe a corpsman's medical kit. That's a desperate reach to prove that such a subject exists. My research indicates that it simply does not exist, and is unverifiable. I think that we should draw the line at not keeping stuff that isn't true and is not an actual concept. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a picture of the item in question here. I'm not sure it warrants a page all for itself but as we don't seem to have a more generic page such as ammo pouch yet, it would be reasonable to expand on this start per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrew Davidson: are you seriously going to base your "keep" entirely on an advert on ebay? Even if we accept the information there as valid, the term battle bag appears nowhere on the page except in the keywords in the header. Keywords on ebay are frequently only tangentially related to the product in order to maximise user search hits. They are essentially meaningless for factual information. SpinningSpark 19:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My !vote is based on the policy WP:IMPERFECT which states, "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts." What we have here is obviously a weak start point – just a few facts – but it appears to be a promising seed for a substantial article. The point of the eBay item is that it demonstrates that the item in question is not a hoax; it's a real thing. eBay is a reasonably reliable source for this because its posters are quite zealous in establishing and protecting their reputation. The seller in this case has a rating of 99.9% and that's based on 17K ratings. I'd bet my life on such a score and the purchasers of military gear might actually have to do so. Other sources which we might use such as newspapers or academic journals are comparatively unreliable. For example, see Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability.

Now, my vision is of an article which covers a variety of such pouches and grab bags in a general way, because it seems that we don't have such such a thing yet – the closest I've found is bug-out bag, which is not quite the same thing. If it turns out that we have a better page already then the page in question can be merged into it because it seems that "battle bag" is a common term for such a thing. So, "Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag, and Smile, Smile, Smile"...Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to have to agree with Spinningspark that the listing of the word "Battle Bag" in the ebay listing was done merely for search optimization given the popularity of the brand "Battle Bag" produced by the company Blackhawk which is what the ebay item looks like it is an alternative to. The whole concept of a "battle bag" seems very vague and non-descript beyond the general idea that is just a pocketed bag (which is what the branded item is) that contains a variety of non-specific items in and that really doesn't seem like it warrants its own article.. --Lotusbloom (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The eBay item is just a start. Here's a article which explains the concept: Why A ‘Battle Bag’ Should Be Part Of Your Survival Stash. The name seems to be a generic one, not a particular brand. And there are synonyms such as "boom bag". But the concept seems clear. It's a bag of essentials, like a bug-out bag, but the mix is focussed on combat rather than evacuation – a bag for winners rather than losers. Looking for sources about Blackhawk, I find Battle Rattle in which the founder talks of their history. That article talks of "load-out bags" which have a mix of equipment tailored for specific missions or environments. Then this review of a particular bag says, "when I served in the Marines we carried one ‘boom’ bag per squad. The boom bag contained extra batteries, ammo, grenades, a water purifier, zip cuffs, a kit to detect explosive residue, and other mission-specific gear." Again, this confirms the concept. So, rather than hastily deleting this, we should follow our editing policy to collaborate in fitting this into our imperfect coverage of military accessories and logistics. Andrew D. (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't verify your book link since it is blocked where I live but I'm not sure I would consider blog posts to fall under "high-quality sources" as cited by Editing_policy#Problems_that_may_justify_removal --Lotusbloom (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• To be fair, the picture that Andrew supplied is for a genuine British Army issue bag developed under the PECOC program. According to our article, the PECOC bag is the British Army's version of the battle bag. It is therefore not some random fashion item and shows that the term refers to a specific form. SpinningSpark 11:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bug-out bag is sometimes called a battle bag or battle box. That's for carrying survival supplies though, not things to take into battle. There is ample mention in places of a "battle bag" for carrying ammunition, so that is a real thing. Haversack, tactical backpack, or perhaps just any military backpack is what its referred to. An article about what the major militaries of the world keep in their military backpacks might be an interesting thing to have. Dream Focus 19:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is actually already a couple dozen pages listing the contents of military backpacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Personal_military_carrying_equipment --Lotusbloom (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a real thing, just need to rename it. Add in a list of things found at Category:Personal military carrying equipment Dream Focus 21:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Thought I had voted on this before but apparently not: my WP:BEFORE did not turn up any specific definition of this, much less any consistent usage or real examples. At best this is a WP:DICDEF and as such fails WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Generic term for a bag that carries military supplies. Reviewing the sources there does not appear to be a standardized type of bag under this name. This reads as a dictionary definition for a phrase that does not have notability itself, and Wikipedia is not the place for anything that has a name, even if the British military or whoever has a version of this. Reywas92^Talk 05:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As stated already, this term seems to just be a generic slang phrase that is sometimes used to refer to a military bag, and is not a standardized, regularly used term. If an actual well-sourced article on the standardized piece of military equipment this seems to be referring to is created, then this name space can be recreated as a redirect. However, the article itself is not worth keeping, as it consists of exactly one sentence of sourced information, a lot of WP:OR, and then a multitude of "references" that are just a bunch of times the two words happened to be used together to describe a variety of objects that have nothing to do with the topic or each other. Nothing actually worth keeping. Rorshacma (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew D WP:IMPERFECT promising seed for a substantial article. It is a real thing Lubbad85 (☎) 02:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after considerable thought. As mentioned above, the problem is that there seems to be no consistency as to either the terms used or even what they refer to. A bit of variation is fine and can be disambiguated within the article, but in this case I don't have any certainty that the various sources using the term are actually talking about the same thing, or that what they are talking about is the thing that the article is talking about, or even that any one source has a consistent meaning in their own mind other than 'a bag you use in battle'. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To those who are saying that this article should be kept, could you please describe the item as anything beyond a generic bag that is taken onto battle because that alone really doesn't warrant an article of its own... --Lotusbloom (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has enough valid information and references to exist on its own, unless a better place can be found to merge it to. There are different standards different militaries have used at different times in history. A list of such items and information about them could be added. Dream Focus 09:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you looked the references? They are all very contradictory and generic. They are referencing a "battle bag" as another term for medical bag, a hockey supply bag and bag to carry microphone supplies. What does any of that have to do with what the rest of the article is talking about? Reading the article all you can learn is that it is a generic bag that can carries a variety of things, why does that need its own article? --Lotusbloom (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You haven't made many edits Special:Contributions/Lotusbloom from this account. Do you have others? Your eight years of editing history fit on one page since its hardly anything. 16 related to deleting this and 30 for other things. If you really have edited so little on Wikipedia then perhaps you don't notice how many of articles exist that aren't needed, but "need" was never a reason to have them. It meets the requirements for an article so it deserves a chance to live. Dream Focus 21:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please stay focused. We are discussing the merits of this article and its contents, not my edit history --Lotusbloom (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Some editors prefer editing anonymously while some prefer lurking. Also edit count doesn't show an editor's experience. Masum Reza^📞 23:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - a possible merge target is Bug-out bag. 'Battle bag' is given as one of the alternative names and two of the references here refer to survival or emergency use. Bug-out bag is hardly a a stellar article but put together with a narrower scope and we have the makings of a workmanlike page. Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - That seems reasonable. --Lotusbloom (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2019 (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.