Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific War campaigns


 * 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 without prejudice against listify / merge / move. No consensus emerged from the discussion on what exactly to do with the article, but all participants agree that the best course of action does not involve an admin hitting the delete button at this stage. Deryck C. 00:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Pacific War campaigns

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I bring this article to AFD with no opinion. It was marked as a Speedy Delete candidate but the article creator made a plausible argument on the talk page for keeping the page. I bring it here for greater scrutiny and for a broader consensus. JodyBtalk 23:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pacific Ocean theater of World War II and potentially merge. FalconKnight makes a good argument; this article overlaps (duplicates) several others, to include List of military engagements of World War II, List of World War II battles and Pacific Ocean theater of World War II particularly. I already feel a bit overwhelmed reading those and there should not be another. I like how the author organized the subject article and maybe some of the battles can be merged in.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Selectively merge and redirect to Pacific Ocean theater of World War II. There is a major problem with this article. It includes things outside its purported scope in two ways: (1) non-campaigns - battles, incidents, "Transport of POWs via hell ships", and (2) actions that were not part of the Pacific War, e.g. Marco Polo Bridge Incident. That being said, Pacific Ocean theater of World War II is pretty short, and there's no reason the first word couldn't be removed from the section title "Major campaigns and battles". Then, we should consider merging List of World War II battles into List of military engagements of World War II. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per RightCowLeftCoast, below.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Selectively merge to Pacific Ocean theater of World War II, List of military engagements of World War II (which is organized by year and type [air, land, sea]) and List of World War II battles (which is grouped by area). Then delete. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This was split out of the Pacific War article (improving that article IMO). The Pacific Ocean theater of World War II article covers a different topic - the Pacific Theatre was a US miliary concept covering the Pacific Ocean area, and doesn't include the extensive fighting which took place on the mainland of Asia. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply. A selective merge still seems reasonable to me, just not as extensive as I originally thought. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep article appears to be a sub-article spunout from Pacific War, see this diff, and the article's creation. As such the notability in question is the parent article's notability. This article was created due to WP:SIZE, and not because it is independently notable. As a list, it appears valid per WP:LISTPURP. Now whether it should be a stand alone list or embedded list is open to debate, surely. However, as a sub-article it is entirely valid. If it needs to be fixed as it goes outside of its scope, that is something to be done on the article. Deleting an article is not a substitution for working on it; see WP:NOTCLEANUP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep - in agreement with User:Coffee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueCanoe (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 February 2015‎

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 16:34, 28 February 2015 (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.