Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main line of resistance

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. Star Mississippi 17:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main line of resistance

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an expert but are the lines not just numbered like the Russian lines against Ukraine now are 1st 2nd 3rd rather than "main"? I mean could you even say which of those was "main"? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't make sense of the nomination, but this seems like a fairly fundamental military term that is used extensively in literature. The article is certainly not in a great shape, but AfD is not cleanup. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here's just a few examples of use as a term of art from approximately four minutes in Google Scholar:
- Miller, Jeffrey. "Battle at the 38th Parallel: Surviving the Peace Talks at Panmunjom." Korea Observer 33.4 (2002): 691.
...fighting along the main line of resistance (MLR) that in many ways eerily resembled...
- Clark, Rodney A., and Martha B. Myers "A Description of Combat Rifle Squads on the Korean MLR During the Winter of 1952-1953." (1954): 0058.
While the troops were in these positions on the Main Line of Resistance (MLR), the researchers visited..
- Chambers II, John Whiteclay. "SLA Marshall’s Men Against Fire: New evidence regarding fire ratios." The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters 33.3 (2003): 6.
...group interviews along the Main Line of Resistance, including...
- Edmonds, C. J. "Chapter Twenty-Four. The Bolshevik Invasion." East and West of Zagros. Brill, 2009. 295-307.
the role of our troops was to be that of an outpost which, if attacked, would fall back to ‘the main line of resistance’.
- Grau, Lester W. Defending Forward: Soviet Activities in Front of the Main Line of Defense. Soviet Army Studies Office, US Army Combined Arms Center, 1990.
Not until 2400 hours did the enemy succeed in smashing the combat outpost and advancing to the main line of resistance...
- Epstein, Jonathan A. "7. The Belgian Army to May 10, 1940." Belgium's Dilemma. Brill, 2014. 190-209.
..the Belgian army went into 1938 planning for a main line of resistance along...
- Teschan, Paul E. "Acute renal failure during the Korean War." Renal Failure 14.3 (1992): 237-239.
..experiences in 1952-1953 when the battle line - the Main Line of Resistance, or MLR - had stabilized...
- Simmons, Edwin Howard. "US Marines in Korea, vol. 2, 1953: The Final Crucible." The Journal of Military History 66.4 (2002): 1245.
Most of the fighting occurred at the company or battalion level in a system of outposts out in front of the main line of resistance.
Also used by e.g. Britannica ([1]). Ljleppan (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~Delete - No sources at all~~. Original source unknown. A google search shows this exact wording repeated on various wiki-like sites, with no sourcing on them either. If this were credible, it would be on a reliable military website somewhere. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per my thread with Hawkeye7 below, I have changed to Keep after sources were added. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-known military concept. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye7 I'm willing to change my above Delete to a Keep, if you, or anyone else, can do some sourcing in the article. That's really the problem there. — Maile (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Do you mean just adding sources to the statements in the article, or overhauling it to make it into a useful article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd be satisfied just to see some sources added at the appropriate places in the article. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I have added sources at the appropriate places in the article, but a great deal more could be said. Ljleppan is correct in reminding that deletion is not cleanup. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The added sourcing is a start. I've changed myself above to Keep. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2023 (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.