Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45

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 keep. The consensus is that the article should be kept in some form. I do not see sufficient support to close this as 'merge' but a WP:MERGEPROP, as post-AFD action, looks the way to go. Just Chilling (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45[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)

This is one of many unsourced articles on "battle honours", using titles that sound more like military history campaigns. There do not appear to be any sources about such a "battle honour", and also few to none on the corresponding battles or campaigns, which might possibly be actual notable topics in some cases. I say either delete them all, or convert some to articles on the events described rather than on the battle honours, when sources can be found. This one can be a first test case, in case someone has alternative good ideas what to do. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If existence is the issue, then this page confirms that it is an official battle honour and was awarded to the Royal Scots Greys. this page confirms the East Lancashire Regiment and South Lancashire Regiment, this page cofirms the Royal Leicestershire Regiment and so on. I don't see the problem with having such pages. What would make them truly useful would be if they contained a definitive list of all units that had received that award, but that is a matter for cleanup and improvement. SpinningSpark 23:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that they exist, but I'm pretty concerned about Notability given the sparsity of sources. I was initialially just looking for sources for the name; I don't find any with "Campaign" in them, do you? Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well you appeared to be doubting existence when you said "...using titles that sound more like military history campaigns". You are right that the honour does not appear to contain the word campaign, but that is just a renaming issue. this page on the Canadian participation, has some discussion of the honour itself. It's brief, but much more than a passing mention; enough to substantially expand the article. As I said, a list of awardees is what the article really needs. Given the millions of men who took part in the campaign, there are bound to be a lot of sources recording this. The information to do that is out there, it just needs a bit of research. The links I gave above were just a sample, here are a few more; Honourable Artillery Company, Manchester Regiment Parachute Regiment, Scots Guards. There will be many more. SpinningSpark 11:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously battle honors exist. But not by the title given here and most others that I tried to look up; even the ones that cited a source didn't have good enough sourcing to find if these things have actual names. I think the name of this article would be better used for an article on the campaign (which most of the text is about already), rather than about the obscure battle honor. That is the article could say "The North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45 was the land campaign starting with the landings in Normandy and ended with Field Marshal Montgomery taking the German military surrender of all German forces in the Netherlands, Northwest Germany and Denmark on Lüneburg Heath in Northwest Germany. The campaign was conducted by Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force, of which the British 21st Army Group was a component, along with the American 12th and 6th Army Groups. Together, the three army groups comprised the Allied effort on the Western Front which at its longest stretched from the North Sea to Switzerland. There is also a battle honor ..." But that's a different topic, so I thought it would be best to delete the current marginally notable topic and start over. Dicklyon (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you want to keep all these battle honor stubs, then maybe find better names for them. For this one, for instance, at least take out the word "campaign" which doesn't appear in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Since it is awarded as a battle honour to British regiments, it is useful to have a short article saying what it consists of, but having explained that briefly it should reader the reader on to more detailed articles about the campaign. It should certainly not be expanded; indeed it should be tagged to be left alone. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do mean by "what it consists of"? Is there anything like that in the article? Also it's unclear why one would tag an article to not be expanded, or left alone; never heard of such a concept. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? – based on what the article and the newly added sources say, the battle honour is called "North-West Europe" and this should be merged with North-West Europe 1942 (battle honour), and North-West Europe campaign of 1940, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: – Thanks for your work and comments on this. Does merging these make sense to you? I see you've put the years on the various entries you added, and it seems likely that having multiple years in a North-West Europe (battle honour) article would make the most sense. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with merging. I put the dates in for precisely that reason. There are units listed in the Canadian source that only fought in 1942 and the ones that were left out are now easily identified. On the other hand, 1942 was a completely different phase of the war consisting of a series of coastal raids, so perhaps it should have a separate section. SpinningSpark 10:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a battle honour, but under common name, and how it appears in articles ought to be at North-West Europe 1944-45 (or however it should be dashed/hyphenated) which is currently a redirect. The alternate would be the unnecessarily long-winded "List of units awarded the North West Europe battle honour for service in 1944 or 1945 or both 1944 and 1945" or somesuch. Regarding possible mergers - "North West Europe 1940" and "North West Europe 1942" are very different kettles of fish. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm unclear what you mean by that. The articles and their sources are not sufficient for me to see the point. The present article says "The battle honour North-West Europe is suffixed with the year, or years, in which the the awarded unit took part in the action." Are the '40 and '42 ones not part of that series? Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have an article for North-West Europe 1940 and I haven't seen any sources for that. SpinningSpark 10:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North-West Europe 1940 is a redirect to Battle of France. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but it does not redirect to anything talking about a battle honour of that name. SpinningSpark 10:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's at North-West Europe campaign of 1940 – one of the articles I suggested merging. Sections would be a good idea. The three stubs might make a decent article. Keep some directs as appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close as merge – two of us agreed to merge, and nobody wants to delete. Any opposition to merging the three North-West Europe battle honour articles into one? Dicklyon (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days is the normal run for a deletion discussion. And the other articles haven't been flagged for merge. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tagged them; discussion at Talk:North-West_Europe_campaign_of_1944–45#Merge_proposal. Can I withdraw the AfD now, or do we wait and let it run? Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There isn't clear consensus for a merger yet (and where to).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the battle honours into North West Europe campaign. —Srnec (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: IIUC, you mean have no article on the battle honours per se, but merge their info into the article on the campaign itself. It would be good if you'd put that (or other, if I've misinterpreted) at the merge discussion at Talk:North-West_Europe_campaign_of_1944–45#Merge_proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified there. I think North West Europe campaign is (and should be) an article on the battle honour(s) and/or the nomenclature. It contains nothing about the campaigning, the overview article for which seems to be Western Front (World War II). Srnec (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what this is doing at AfD. At worst it is a merge and it stands in its own right anyway. Szzuk (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already agreed it a merge. There are open questions of where to merge. Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I see 4 keep votes and 1 merge? I don't see a merge consensus? And I'm not voting for it. Szzuk (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we need to strike some keeps and change them to merge. Four of us here semi-support merging, and are carrying on about that at Talk:North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45. Join there if you want. Dicklyon (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation here takes precedence. I don't see much consensus there either. Szzuk (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2019 (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.