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 per WP:KERRRZAPPP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military strike (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)

Dictionary definition. Geschichte (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is a vague term with no specific definition. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't need to be here. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless a miltary history buff objects or attempts to rescue this, all I see is a classic WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try now. Uncle G (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment. Yes I know that with the nom there are 4 "deletes" and no "keeps" but I'm relisting for commentary on uncle G's Kerrrzappp! --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has now expanded beyond a simple dicdef, and clearly has further potential both in terms of military tactics and strategy and its context as an exercise in international relations. One interesting issue is that although current US usage confines it to offensive operations short of war, I wonder whether that is necessarily the case. Raid is a term used both within and without a formal war, and I am not sure that strike can necessarily be confined either. --AJHingston (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Rename to Strike (military), as per Raid (military), and Refocus to being only about strikes, not both strikes and raids.--Coin945 (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what sources are you proposing that support such a refocus? All the sources that I found and used, treated the two together. Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The word strike is used a lot in a military context and here's another source which discusses this at length: Strike Warfare. Warden (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think there's a notable topic here, evidenced by the excellent improvement here. I can think of a couple possible ways to rename the article, but I'm happy to leave that discussion to the normal editing process. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:07, 19 June 2012 (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.