Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exercise High Mark

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 delete. Overall, I have assessed and read the references and believe they do not support the keep rationales, which are therefore given lower weight. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise High Mark[edit]

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

Non-notable military exercise, these sort of things happen all the time and a rarely notable and we have no indication this is anything special - prod removed with accusation of drive-by-tagging MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is satisfied if there are sufficient sources for the subject, which are clearly available for this military exercise. Mar4d (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sources are not an indication of being notable, the military do exercises all the time it is part of the routine of military training and hardly encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (via del/sort WP:PAK) Recurring major exercise with recurring coverage, satisfies GNG. Something like Red Flag exercise. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more, and more comprehensive sources (two of three cites are deadlinks, the extant one is hardly comprehensive) are given to demonstrate notability (specifically the GNG) GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While my sweep of world sources found nothing much, I found a mention here and a mention here and more in-depth coverage here and substantial coverage here plus in-depth coverage here. Important topic in a volatile region of the world since these 'defense' exercises could possibly provoke fighting or even an all-out war between two substantial nations. One thing I am not sure about is whether the article might be renamed Exercise High Mark 2010 or if these exercises recur at every five-year interval, then maybe the current title is best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the references just show a local interest, as before military do hundreds of excercises all the time, very rarely notable like this one. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Iconcur with Milborne. Excercise are run of the mill, unencyclopaedic, (unless somethinghappens because of one that is notable in it's own right), and non-notable.WP:GNG, notnews, etc.etc.--Petebutt (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2014 (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.