Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Bliss, Texas

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. As always, merge/rename discussions may occur at the appropriate talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Bliss, Texas

According to the Military history Wikiproject Manual of Style:Mugs2109 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a unit, formation, or base should be placed at "Name (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs

the Move request on the talk page^{[clarification needed]} makes it clear that the bases are to be called "fort X", not "Fort X, location". Moreover, there does not appear to have been any discussion concerning this move before it was made. Becuase this is the second instance of "Fort Bliss" being moved out to "Fort Bliss, Texas', and becuase an article needs to exist under only one name, I am asking that this page be either redirected and protected or deleted and protect to prevent a third reincarnation. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: from Talk:Fort Bliss Mugs2109 (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC):[reply]
- The solution is to have a separate article for the census-designated place, which should be called Fort Bliss, Texas (and make clear whether the CDP includes anything outside the fort). This will be a stub, and probably will always be a stub. User:Septentrionalis 18:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect page is uneeded. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —TomStar810 (Talk) 22:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The base and the community are two different things. From the article about the census-designated palce: "This article is about the census-designated place (6.2 square miles) within the larger military installation (550 square miles) of the same name. For the main article on the United States Army post (in both Texas and New Mexico), see Fort Bliss." -- Eastmain (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, the CDP and the fort are separate entities. ~~Nom is possibly confused.~~Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is against police to have two pages on what is essentially the same topic.^{[citation needed]} It would be like having an article on the White House and an article on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the former discussing the house and its history and latter discussing the current residents. Moreover, the article size - the only real justifiable reason for splitting an article up - is well below the threshold that would nessicitate a break up. Fort bliss, Texas, is therefore uneeded because fort bliss can do the same job as effectively but without confusing people and without creating the illusion that we have two articles on the same subject. TomStar810 (Talk) 23:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There are different articles on White House and its subset Oval Office, just as the "Fort Bliss, Texas" CDP -- as named by the census bureau -- is a subset of the Fort Bliss -- as named by the Army -- military installation that spans an area in both New Mexico and Texas. To claim policy prohibits a subset of Fort Bliss from having its own page would require each wikipage for a Fort Bliss unit to be deleted with redirect. Agree - nominee is confused (very).Mugs2109 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago, CDPs of military bases (assuming that they share the same name, such as Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio) were merged into their respective bases^{[citation needed]} under the reasoning given by TomStar. Against this standard, the CDP information was split out as a separate article two weeks ago; consequently, I'm restoring the Fort Bliss article to the standard format (and putting this title back to being a redirect), and ask that this be speedy closed as a result of all problems having been resolved. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I'm not putting Fort Bliss, Texas back to a redirect; that's against policy. I ask that such be done when this is closed. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The unsupported claim that something was done a few years ago does not make it the standard.Mugs2109 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider reversing the old practice on this generally. We need to recognize the official designations. I think our geographic coverage is much more sophisticated now than a few years ago. DGG (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this really the right place to discuss a reversal of longstanding consensus? I think the better place to discuss a reversal of the old practice would be Talk:Fort Bliss or the military wikiproject noted by the nom; as a merge/redirect would fit current consensus, it would be best to go with the nominator's revised proposal. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For those who want the policy for pages on military installations to have the prohibition, here's a draft for the Military History Style Guide (yes, it is a guide, which differs from policy) that shows how ridiculous such a prohibition would be: Mugs2109 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT
for
Military History Style Guide

Prohibited articles: The following are prohibited articles:
1. subarticles on Census-designated places when a CDP is part of a military installation that already has an article - even when the military installation spans two states (such as Fort Bliss) and the CDP is in only one state (Fort Bliss, Texas)

Merge/Redirect—we don't need two articles! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevance: (regarding "need", versus value to the reader), e.g., a different Oval Office article isn't a "need", either.Mugs2109 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Fort Bliss, Texas and Fort Bliss are not the same article. In its simplest terms, one is about a military base and the other is not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article about a CDP; The fort is a separate article. Alansohn (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2008 (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.