Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles of Sangju and Chungju

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 of the debate was merge and delete not possible; as content duplicates material in other articles, delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Sangju and Chungju

Why do we need this article, when we have separate ones for the Battle of Sangju, and the Battle of Chungju? If there is material here that a contributor believes pertinent, it should perhaps be moved to the general Seven-Year War article. LordAmeth 02:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

del , after merging the contents wherever appropriate. mikka (t) 03:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Rob e rt 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete is not an option. But the page as named doesn't make much sense. How about moving it to ~~Sangju and Chungju Campaign~~ Chungju Campaign. (forgot to sign)--Samuel J. Howard 05:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Chungju Campaign (see my vote below). -- JLaTondre 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page seems helpful to understand the context of these 2 battles, in April of the same month, as all 3 pages are written today. While this 'could' be put on the seven years war page, as written, it makes sense. If some author or editor expert in this area had a better way to structure the whole discussion, and the result was that this page was not needed, then a delete at that time could make sense. A rename per SJ Howard seems helpful, but that doesn't need an AFD.Obina 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the logic above. As nom states, each battle has its own article. A reason therefore needs to be provided to justify an additional article that does nothing more than recapitulate the content of the separate entries. There is none implied in this article, nor can I see how one could be given; additionally, further work on these engagements would be better focused on their individual pages - this is a distraction that adds nothing. As a result, Delete. Eusebeus 19:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven-Year War page does not show how the individual battles relate and the individual battle articles only touch upon it. While that information could be put into Seven-Year War, it probably has the potential to be expanded into a decent article of it's own. -- JLaTondre 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chungju Campaign. Both articles were created by the same person (Whlee) and are pretty much identical. It is possible that Chungju Campaign can be extended beyond what is suitable for a summary within Seven-Year War so I'm fine with an additional article, but not two. -- JLaTondre 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete Johntex\^talk 02:18, 12 January 2006 (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.