::That Sparrow Mass case is simply sad. When I look both at the length of the information present in the article and the amount of information that was placed in the infobox, neither make a solid case for or against having one. At the time where you added it first, the article is simply short enough that there's no need to summarize key facts for the reader, nor is the article presenting a topic too complex to be appropriately summarized in the infobox, despite what the contra people state on the article's talk page. 
 ::Even more fascinatingly, at the point where you first added the infobox, neither you nor the anti-infobox crowd could make any claims at being the article's author, maintainer or custodian. Which makes the whole debate look like an argument for the sake of it, opposing zealots to crusaders. There's objectively no sane reason to revert your initial addition of the box, but similarly, there's no objectively sane reason to edit war over the removal either. One could object that "they started it", which is absolutely true. It's also utterly irrelevant. You could all simply have done one WP:BRD cycle, exposed your reasons for wanting / not wanting the box exactly once, and then walked away from the completely inconsequential matter. And that would, that should have been the end of it. The tragedy is that it wasn't.  
 ::Some battles are worth fighting. This wasn't one.  (')'