Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exercise Purple Storm

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 redirect‎ to United States invasion of Panama with the history retained for a merger, if desired. Star Mississippi 15:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Purple Storm[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Independent notability is questionable. Stub with no unique substantial content. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Panama, and United States of America. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of U.S. Department of Defense and partner code names. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However I will copy the information over there unless there is any objection. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged with United_States_invasion_of_Panama instead of List of U.S. Department of Defense and partner code names. killer bee  06:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United_States_invasion_of_Panama. I think this is a better place for this article as Operation Just Cause also has a section there. I don't think it should be merged and redirected to List of U.S. Department of Defense and partner code names as suggested by Buckshot06. killer bee  06:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States invasion of Panama -- I don't see anything here to merge as the sources are primary and the subject is a minor part of the invasion. I think BLAR is the only reasonable action here. I agree with K6bee9 that the codenames article is a poor choice. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:27, 14 December 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.