Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naming the Gulf War

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 merge to Gulf War. Shimeru (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the Gulf War

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

Discussion of alternate names for a 6 month-long war doesn't seem to merit an article on its own. This information should be merged into Gulf War. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom; clearly this page shouldn't exist. — Timneu22 · talk 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or incorporate somehow into Gulf War where appropriate. Wrightchr (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I'm not necessarily concerned about the notability of the names and naming rationales, but rather the thin sourcing. However, many of the refs on the main article do cover this topic (and others cover it incidentally by using the various names), so merging seems the best solution short of copying and duplicating much content. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This must have been one of my earliest articles. The two sources are other language version of the Gulf War article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gulf War—there's no reason this shouldn't be in the parent article. Not significant enough to stand by itself. –Grondemar 22:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - merits mention in Gulf War Tzu Zha Men (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge we have other name articles, and I hardly see why the length of the war matters. There has been controversy on the naming, and different names, with different origins. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The gulf war was important, and its duration doesn't negate it. That said, there's nothing worthy of an article here, and why would a redirect be appropriate? This is not a plausible search term, and not apparently linked. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(clarification) - I never said the Gulf War itself wasn't significant just because it was short, don't get hung up on that, guys. It just happens that 6 months is not a long time for alternative names to develop that are significant. Even when they do develop, the 4-year long First World War is also known as World War I, The Great War, and The War to End All Wars, yet there is not a separate article on the naming of that war. The point is, for the Gulf War, alternative names can easily be discussed in the main article. For Naming the American Civil War, for instance, this would not be the case, as there is much background between the different names for the war, and the article also discusses USA vs CSA names for specific battles, however, in an article like the Gulf War, where we can merge, we should. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2010 (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.