Military reserve : Some references were recently added to this article, but no reference distinguishes between Military reserve and Military reserve force .  Crashed greek ( talk ) 04:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I haven't looked into the sources, but it appears that they are attempting to address different topics.  The nominated article seems to cover a strategic or tactical reserve , as part of an active battle formation, such as the German mobile reserves during the Operation Overlord .  Military reserve force seems to cover the topic of a force that can be mobilized if needed but is not part of a countries standing force, such as Army Reserve (United Kingdom) and Republic of Korea Reserve Forces .  BilledMammal ( talk ) 06:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per above and per Ljleppan.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 06:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep One does not need to go beyond looking at the first sentences of both articles to see that they are, indeed, distinct concepts.  The distinction corresponds to the difference between the two first definitions in DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms , which is the very first reference in Military reserve : Military reserve (this article) refers to Portion of a body of troops that is kept to the rear, or withheld from action at the beginning of an engagement, in order to be available for a decisive movemen , i.e. human beings currently working as active duty soldiers who just have been tasked with a mission of "wait around, until we know what you should do".  This use of "reserve" is on tactical and strategic level, and is the antonym of a "committed force".  Military reserve force (the other article) refers to Members of the Military Services who are not in active service but who are subject to call to active duty.  In the US, these are members of the "Reserve Components of the Armed Forces of the United States", i.e. the Army National Guard of the United States; the Army Reserve; the Naval Reserve; etc.  In Finland, these are members of the general public who have completed their conscription and have transitioned back to civilian life, but can be called back to active duty in case of a national emergency.  This use of "reserve" is on a defence political level, and is the antonym of an "active force".  This distinction is so basic, that very few texts beyond dictionaries etc. would bother actually typing it out.  - Ljleppan ( talk ) 06:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, and in case you wanted sources to demonstrate that "reserve" (using the tactical/strategic/operational definition) is a notable concept, here's a bunch of stuff I had quickly accessible: Jouko, Petteri (2019).  Ylijohdon reservi: Suomalaisen panssaritaktiikan vuosisata [ Reserve of the High Command: A Century of Finnish Armored Tactics ] (PDF) .  National Defence University /Edita.  ISBN 978-951-37-7588-9 .  One of the main points - to the degree it's in the title - is how the Finnish Army armored formation(s) were consistently conceptualized as a reserve force.  Pulkkinen, Esa (1990).  "Sotateknisen kehityksen jääkäriprikaatin taktiikalle 1990-luvulla asettamat vaatimukset" [Requirements Imposed by Military Technical Advancement on the Tactics of the Jäger Brigade in the 1990s].  Tiede ja ase .  The article discusses the use of reserves and the requirements imposed on them throughout.  Lehti, Olavi J. Panssarintorjunta ja sen tulevaisuus [ Anti-tank Warfare and its Future ] (PDF) .  Suomalaisen sotataidon klassikot.  National Defence University .  ISBN 978-951-25-2971-1 .  The book discusses the use of anti-tank reserves throughout.  Finnish Army Headquarters/Personnel Section (2008).  Komppanian taisteluohje [ Company Battle Manual ].  Edita.  All kinds of tactical reserves discussed throughout.  Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history .  Ljleppan ( talk ) 06:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a subject that is distinct from Military reserve force and it is notable in its own right.  It appears that the misunderstanding exhibited in the deletion rationale is in itself the perfect reason that this article is necessary.  Exemplo347 ( talk ) 07:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  Ljleppan ( talk ) 10:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The two concepts have similar names, but are distinct.  Both are extremely important elements of military strategy and military force structures.  Nick-D ( talk ) 11:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agree for the same reasons as Nick-D above.  TheNavigatrr ( talk ) 03:22, 15 July 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.

Discussion outcome: keep