Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audie Murphy honors and awards

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 speedy keep. This clearly is not about to go anywhere. Because the nominator appears to be interested in something more akin to a merge than deletion, and only the actual deletion (i.e. hiding revisions) of a page requires a formal AfD, I would suggest that this question be further pursued on the list's talk page. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audie Murphy honors and awards[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)

There is no good reason for this, or anything like it, to be a separate article. Distill out any excess words, and merge it back into the bio. Qwirkle (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Merger is not done by deletion -- see WP:MAD. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of articles isn’t done by deletion, but data from a nuked article might be brought over. Qwirkle (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the criteria for WP:WHENSPLIT. MarnetteD|Talk 18:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHENSPLIT is irrelevant here twice over. to begin with, that merely suggests desired sizes, and does not address what should be split off in detail. It does, however, explicitly make the point that splitting is pointless if it leads to excessive duplication...like it does here. Qwirkle (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the criteria for WP:WHENSPLIT. In addition to which, it is a Featured List and part of a Featured Topic. This has been through enough reviews to iron out the criteria issue. — Maile (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this does highlight the inadequacy of the FA review process, but I don’t think this is the right venue to discuss that. Qwirkle (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does the nominator have a reason to delete this article apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It performs no service to the reader. There is next to nothing in it that isn’t (quite rightly) in the main article on the subject. It is redundant. What does this add that couldnt be handled by a very small addition to the main article? Same words, same facts, same pretty little pictures, doubled. Qwirkle (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you surveyed the 1,800 people who've looked at the page in the last two weeks to see if they found any use in the article? Or do simply you find no use for it? And tell me, where do you find a complete list of Murphy's awards in his biography that this article duplicates? Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a far more relevant chart...Qwirkle (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without a shadow of a doubt but I would say remove the badges section as this about awards and honours. The marksman's badge is lower than the expert badge...16/30...and the expert badge doesn't seem to be particularly difficult either 26/30. (BTW I used to be an infantry officer and firearms instructor and represented Sandhurst in shooting before anyone jumps on me!) and the infantry combat badge was created to boost morale and awarded to all those that fought. --Dom from Paris (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not all those who fought, only infantrymen. Due to the large numbers of decorations given out to others, particularly in the Air Corps, the infantry combat badge came to be more highly prized than many decorations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have said all infantrymen who fought. Do you know how many were given out during WWII? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid grounds for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No rationale for deletion given. In fact, the nom does not even propose deletion, so an inappropriate process is being used. SpinningSpark 21:21, 24 October 2018 (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.