Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assault pioneer

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 in one form or another. No one supplied a policy-based reason for deletion and how to fix the article or where to merge/redirect to can be discussed on the talk page. SoWhy 07:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assault pioneer (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)

Essentially recaps Pioneer (military), focusing on a relatively small commonwealth usage. Merge, delete, or cut back to its core, a stub on army naming conventions. Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - It isn't really a redo of Pioneer. It is on the current British use of assault pioneer to describe a fully fledged infantry soldier who is also a pioneer. The article does need to be improved.Icewhiz (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a well established term relating to an infantry soldier specialisation which has several decades history in the Australian Army at least. Pioneer battalions (per WWI) were a very different kettle of fish. No doubt the article needs improvement, but its deletion isn't justified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the exact same duty was often described historically as a pioneer, and the article consists mostly of shared history and making narrow distinctions. Better in one piece; merged perhaps, rather than just deleted, but there is really only one subject here, aside from the very narrow point that the Commonwealth usage is for soldiers organic to a larger infantry unit. Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The World War I pioneer battalions were organised as infantry battalions, but were allocated a higher percentage of men who had been tradesmen in civilian life. As the infantry battalions evolved, the pioneer battalions remained the same, so by 1918 they were larger but had less automatic weapons and therefore less firepower than an infantry battalion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In the British Army context, the assault pioneers are infantry, an organic part of the infantry battalion, whereas the pioneers are part of the Logistics Corps, but formerly the Royal Pioneer Corps, which has its own article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer a few points raised above: British usage isn't universal, and was not standard over time. A "pioneer sergeant" might be anything from (an often artificial) "historical" ceremonial usage, with an Ozzanian dressed up to fit a British image of a napoleonic sappeur, with a little Beau Geste thrown in, to a supervisor of light construction specialists. The formal naming, and formal organization, of infantrymen with special combat engineering skills as "assault pioneers' might date to the 1940s, but the concept prolly dates to Caesar, and has cognates in most armies. Anmccaff (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly that doesn't go to the issue. Assault pioneer has a separate meaning to pioneer. There is no need to conflate the two. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a significantly separate one. A few sentences noting that several armies in the British military tradition now use "assault pioneer" to refer to pioneers organic to larger pure infantry units would cover that completely; a paragraph could give national and historical examples...some of which might long predate the use of the term. Anmccaff (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pioneer (military); unsourced original research. Anything that pertains to Assault pioneer can be just effectively be covered in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2017 (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.