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 stub has no place on Wiki, as "pockets of resistance" is not a term. Santabarba 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - I have destubified the article, describing several battles from World War II that involved pockets of resistance. Dino 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep::comment: actually it is a term. Its a military term. After an enemy is defeated and they are fighting from small areas within its called 'pockets of resistance' Though the article makes it sound as if its a new term for Iraq from the media. Its been around for years. Commonly used to describe holdouts in island hopping in WWII. A complete article re-write for context is needed to be accurate.--Xiahou 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - this is the second article started by me that User:Santabarba (a new user) has put up for deletion in the past half an hour. It is a term that has been widely used by the media, and as pointed out above, a military term. Sfacets 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: We have already established that the reason for nomination is a moot point (It is in fact a term) - in addition to this the article has since been expanded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfacets (talk • contribs) 00:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comments. I don't see any sources for the article, nor do I see how it could grow beyond a stub, or a dictionary definition. Lastly, since article names are supposed to be singular it should be moved to "pocket of resistance", if kept. -Will Beback · † · 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, source, and expand. An article could possibly be written about this, including but not limited to definition, historical examples, tactics relating to the pockets and the cleaning thereof, more widespread use. Agree that the term is older and used wider than the Iraq invasion; here is an example from World War II, here is one from a UK parlimentary transcript regarding the implementation of a new law, and several military novels I have read have used the term. -- saberwyn 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question: can more be said about this than an expanded circular definition: "Pockets of resistance are small areas or groups (pockets) resisting an occupation force or government." ? Wintermut3 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wintermut3 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, this is really a dicdef best covered in a related more notable term such as search and destroy. Even as a term related to Iraq its usage peaked in 2004-2005. It's certainly much older[1]. As a political term this is no stay the course. --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a valid term, but more appropriate as a dicdef. Realkyhick 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as it could develop into a better article. However, if it shows no sign of improving, transwiki it. PyrospiritFlamesFire 16:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too generic to be worthy of an article, since it's not a technical military term, just a figure of speech which happens to have a military application. Certainly not a term restricted to Iraq either, as people have said above. The OED records its first use in 1940 (and the first use of "pocket" to refer to a group of resisting troops in 1899)! I find it amazing how people always assume that terms started to be used when they first heard them. -- Necrothesp 18:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see how this can ever be expanded beyond the scope of a dicdef. Arkyan 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [see below] per saberwyn. Due to usage of this term in the Iraq War and elsewhere, it's timely. Historic examples could be added, such as Bastogne (1944) and Stalingrad (1942-43). Dino 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef - the term doesn't seem really expandable into a more general article. Transwiki might be a good idea for this one. Tony Fox(arf!) 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Resistance movement Also redirect Resistance (military) to the same place. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable alternative. Arkyan 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure about that. "Pockets of resistance" means small encircled groups of regular army soldiers, bypassed after an enemy offensive (short time frame ... days or perhaps a couple of months), probably relying on conventional tactics. "Resistance movement" means an army of irregulars primarily based among and recruiting from the civilian population, perhaps lasting for many years and relying on guerrilla tactics. These are separate concepts and perhaps worthy of disambiguation. Dino 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or transwiki. I have seen this expression used many, many times. Might be appropriate for an article on overrun or envelopment. — RJH (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Salients, re-entrants and pockets per Kirill. Please also note that the article has recently been expanded considerably - some people may wish to reconsider their comments to date in the light of this. Ben Aveling 12:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the proper solution is to rename that article "Salients and re-entrants" and keep this one, transferring information about pockets from that article to this one. What do you think? Dino 14:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this proposal. Seems sensible. One significant difference between the two is that 'pockets of resistance' is often used to refer to guerrila and insurgent activity, where there is short, or long periods where the enemy's location isn't really known, except that they're somewhere in the area. Very different to salients and re-entrants. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - or a brief section linking to this article is also possible. Sfacets 05:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
While I have no objection to a separate article on pockets as distinct from the salients one, it should really be at Pocket (military) rather than Pockets of resistance; the latter is more a media term than a military one, and can't be properly applied to things like the kesselshlacht doctrine in any case. Kirill Lokshin 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article greatly expanded. -- Petri Krohn 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kirill. The other article points to this one using ((main)), and the corresponding section of Salients is stubby. They fit adequately, and they can always be split later if need be. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important military concept. Gives clear examples. Everyking 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this likely to happen today? The article is nominated at T:TDYK. -- ALoan(Talk) 10:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who can say? There's a 4 day backlog, but it's not a huge number of articles if someone decided to do it. Given the DYK listing, I'm sure a request at AFI would get a speedy response. Or we can leave it where is till DYK is done. I guess it doesn't really matter where it is, so long as there's certainty that it will stay put for a while? Therefore, I've struck the entry at RPM, and you can decide if you want to get it moved real quick, or just leave it alone for the moment. I've been bold and removed the AFD tag from the article (clear consensus to keep as expanded) and I've also removed the Stub tag. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the AFD tag has been reverted already. Sigh. Can someone else please pull the AFD tag, I'm not going to revert war over it. If necessary, point out that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:23, 6 March 2007 (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.