Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle East campaign (2nd nomination)

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 Middle East Theatre of World War II. kur ykh 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East campaign[edit]

I am proposing that this article be deleted as the information contained within, is already covered in detail within other summery articles. In this case both the Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II and Middle East Theatre of World War II articles summarise the events that happened in the Middle East geographical area during the World War Two period.

When one consults the Oxford dictionary it states that a military campaign is a “series of military operations intended to achieve an objective in a particular area” (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/campaign?view=uk); dictionary.com states something along the same lines: that a campaign is “military operations for a specific objective.”(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/campaign)

Thus as a descriptive name it does fit. This “campaign” was a series of mini-wars, a few bombing raids, and small campaigns launched on one front of a theatre of war; not a separate individual military campaign.

Doing Google searches on the term one finds nothing, when excluding wiki or other websites copying information off the wiki, on this subject so I do not believe it necessary compiles with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

To sum up I believe that this is not a common or correct name for the events that took place, I believe the summaries have sufficiently been dealt with elsewhere so that this article is no longer needed and from a historical/military point of view the events that took place were not one single military campaign and each had there own objectives and were loosely related.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was a series of operations intended to gain control of the middle east; thus it was a campaign. Your main argument for deletion appears to be that this was no a campaign, but it is.--Patton 123 17:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle East was mostly already in Allied or friendly hands, there was no campaign to gain control of it. The Anglo-Iraqi war was imitated because of a coup in Iraq and a subsequent army rebellion. The rebellion was put down and there was essentially a return to the status quo. Syria was attacked due to multiple reasons, and one will note the Allies called the fighting in Syria – the Syrian campaign - while Iran was attacked to keep a supply line to the USSR secure.

These three campaigns/mini wars were rather loosely related and there were no single Allied or Axis overarching campaign to secure the entire Middle East region, as you have put it.

On top of that the police actions in Palestine, which had also been going on pre war, plus the Italian bombing raids, have near enough nothing to do with the above; the Italians initially did not launch any campaign to capture the Middle East. Note: Unsigned Comment

In the many sources I have read on the fighting in this neck of the world I have yet to see one that calls it one single campaign: some examples, the British Official History considers them separate campaigns as does for example the Essex Regiments history.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this article demonstrates notability and these campaigns were part of WWII. The USSR supply lines were important and what would have happened if these middle eastern area had fallen? This is most definitely keepable. Riotrocket8676 (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The noms point is; There was no actual named "Middle East Campaign", this is nothing to do with notability. As for the nominator, I believe you have a point, but can you confirm if all the information in this article is duplicated somewhere else in the encyclopaedia? I'll take your word for it and you'll have my support if it is. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is duplicated within the two articles linked to in the initial nomination bar the mentioning of the Italians bombing Palestine, which can easily be added.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good enough for me ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though not the most prominent or well-known area of WWII, definitely notable enough to merit an article (albeit in need of expansion). Cam ^(Chat) 06:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL why do you guys keep mentioning notability? The nominator didn't say this was about notability, it's because he doesn't think the name is appropriate and it's content is duplicated information. If you oppose that, then that's fine, but notability isn't the issue here. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move content to Middle East Theatre of World War II and convert this article to a redirect. These two articles cover the same topic and I don't think that any historians view events in the Middle East during WWII as constituting a single campaign. The definitive Oxford Companion to the Second World War doesn't have an entry for such a campaign, for instance, but rather separate entries for each of the campaigns fought in the region. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect: per my comment above. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move & redirect per Nick-D above. Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Redirect I agree with Nick-D. The two articles are covering the same topics. Nuff' Said. Riotrocket8676 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completly agree with the above position of "Move and Redirect"; redirecting the article achieves what i essentially set out to do.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma, I don't think you should put "merge & redirect" in bold down here, it looks like an extra !vote, would you consider un-bolding it please? Ryan4314 (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move and redirect per Nick-D above. We should probably have an article dealing with the Middle East in WWII, so the only problem here is the name of the article. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note again, there are two articles that summerise the events that took place in the middle east along with the campaign articles themselves.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Middle East Theatre of World War II. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2009 (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.