Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army National Guard Forces


 * 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 of the debate was REDIRECT to United States National Guard. Owen&times; &#9742;  19:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Army National Guard Forces
Useless list article which is empty Mecanismo | Talk 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral - has potential as a category page, but not as an article. See also related articles: State Defense Forces and United States National Guard.&#160;—  The K Man  talk 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; We already have the category U.S. Army National Guard. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States National Guard. The content in this article might be useful as a template, but not as an article...  Blackcats 07:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- JJay 18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment why? --Mecanismo | Talk 12:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For obvious reasons. To encourage people to do articles on these Guard Forces. -- JJay 18:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read Gateman1997's and Tom Harrison's comments. You will realize that not only the reasons behind a "keep" vote aren't at all obvious but that also a list about that subject doesn't make sense. --Mecanismo | Talk 23:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * They are entitled to their views. A list is better. -- JJay 23:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is also your personal view. It may not be properly fundamented and based on logic but it is still your oppinion. On the other hand, if you want to state your oppinion on a vote, it is expected that you base your vote on logic reasoning and not on a whim. --Mecanismo | Talk 02:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I can properly fundament my oppinions as well as any one. -- JJay 03:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Then you would not object to point out the basis for your vote. A blank statement and a "for the obvious reasons" aren't much proof of a person's capacity of forming a fundamented oppinion based on policy and presented evidence. Moreover, it seems that you have a tendency to not fundament your statements, votes and criticism regarding submittions I make, which I fail to answer why. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There was no criticism because I voted Keep without comment. Although I previously fundamented my reason in response to your probing question, I'll restate here- I support keeping the list: To encourage people to do articles on these Guard Forces. I'll make that more explicit now. -- JJay 18:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and Expand. Let's turn those red links black. -- JJay 18:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, everyone knows the 50 states have ANG forces... we don't need a red list of them.Gateman1997 18:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States National Guard. Izehar (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. Stifle 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.