Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military mind

Military mind

Looks like a bad joke to me, especially BTU (blowing things up). Unless somebody can think of something sensible to replace it with this article should be deleted. Edward 01:39, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

• Delete. No, I think it's an honest entry from a serviceman/woman. Acronyms are very common in army parlance and only half-joking most of the time; FUBAR and AWOL are just the tip of the iceberg. That said, I don't think the current entry or the topic as a whole is salvageable in any way. "The military mind" sounds much too vague and subjective. If there have been objective facts, studies, books, whatever on it, I'm all for rewriting. Pending such a rewrite, delete. JRM 01:52, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
• Delete: It's a shifty dictdef of private vintage in this form. Of course the phrase is used, but it's not used in a special way, and particularly not in this special way. (BTW, the US Navy gave us three words; two are used in computers. There is SNAFU, which stands for "Situation Normal All F*cked Up," and then a comparative form, TARFU, which means "Things Are Really F*cked Up," and then the superlative, FUBAR, which we all know means "F*cked Up Beyond All Recognition." What's unique is that it's the only case of military slang that has an adjectival, comparative, and superlative formation on an acronymn.) Geogre 04:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Does that make FUBAR a relative or absolute superlative? Wile E. Heresiarch 20:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • An absolute superlative. The observation that these acronymns exist in an hierarchy comes from Algeo & Pyles, ed. History of English. Partridge is also absolutely chock-a-block with military slang. I think the armed services generate more slang, and more acronymn slang, than even computer geeks. Geogre 15:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure it's a serious entry, but the subject is too hard to pin down. Perhaps military psychology could be a good article, but this article is too vague and probably not a generally accepted usage. Isomorphic 06:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Rje 13:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, sincere attempt at what amounts to a weak dicdef of two common words. Wyss 20:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Googling for "military mind" yields a lot of hits, so I think it's reasonable to say the phrase is in common circulation. So I can see a need for an article by that name, but I don't know if the current version is it. No vote yet. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Makes sense to me! -- Judson 21:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, the idea of a "military mind" is a legitimate subject. -- Crevaner 00:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. All the page needs is a little editing. -- Old Right 00:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sysop acting on this article: please note that Crevaner and Old Right have similar user pages and similar VfD voting patterns. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Judson too. I picked up on this independently, it's very suspicious. Michael Ward 07:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this orphaned dicdef. While there might be something encyclopedic to say about the values generally instilled by the various militaries of the world or about the psychological preparedness that they generally develop, this would not be a useful starting point for such an article (nor would it be my first choice of title). Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who can write that article without it being original research. I know the US Army has done studies on this topic but I don't believe they have been released. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The military mind or military mind-set is worthy of an article; and my experience is that the phrase the military mind is the customary way to refer to it in US English. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)