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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military doctrines category is sufficient for organization. --Ineffable3000 04:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 04:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists and Categories are 100% compatible not mutually exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list presents the information in a way that a category could not. --- RockMFR 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I have personally found this list tremendously useful. -Toptomcat 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. A category would not be sufficient. Snurks^TC 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. — RJH (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unremarkable materials are notoriously easy to maintain. Xiner 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is very useful as is, largely due to the structure which is incompatible with making it a category. It's good as is, I see no valid reason to delete it. -NorsemanII 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Very important list, with much usfull information. YankeeDoodle14 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Please stop nominating every military-related list for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 06:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is an extremely useful list, and the structure makes it far more helpful than the military doctrines category. As to Xiner's point, I don't see how being easy to maintain means we should delete it. I would think that would support the opposite position. As there is no good reason to delete this, and because it is remarkably useful, I must concur with those above me in maintaining strongly that this article should be kept. -NorsemanII 07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and categorise, WP:NOT a thesaurus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could you please explain the relevance? --Hemlock Martinis 03:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevance of the list resembling an annotated version of something one might find in a thesaurus? That seems like a clear indication of something that can be categorised rather than listified. Lists can add structure, or information, or allow navigation. This one doesn't add structure, the non-links don't seem to be a way of noting missing article topics, and the need for such a list for navigation purposes isn't obvious. The fact that there's a military tactics article is a point in its favour, but I don't see that this list supplements the information in that article. Nor is this is a case where adding articles to Category:Military tactics will be controversial, which would be one very good reason to have a list. Perhaps I'm listophobic? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the list is very well structured with layers of depth - changing it to a category would lose too much in translation. Quack 688 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep - a well structured overview of military tactics. Superior to the category in the presentation of this topic selection. In other words the category is not sufficient for presenting these topics as well as this list does (a category can't present structure like this on a single page).  The Transhumanist   12:55, 7 December 2006 (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.