417:(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.
454:-- 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.
384:
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
241:
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
587:
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
542:
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
416:
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
242:
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.
210:
344:
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.
815:
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
361:
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?
204:
573:
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.
516:– 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
468:
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.
136:
131:
140:
431:
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.
376:
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
123:
385:
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;
170:
163:
279:
259:
296:
838:
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
909:
817:
731:
127:
95:
225:
671:– 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.
569:(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
110:
192:
119:
71:
970:
935:
921:
903:
886:
872:
851:
829:
803:
780:
743:
725:
709:
680:
662:
646:
613:
597:
582:
554:
529:
504:
477:
463:
440:
426:
411:
371:
356:
305:
288:
271:
251:
65:
700:– 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?
488:
186:
487:– 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
182:
908:
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
668:
492:
232:
90:
83:
17:
52:. 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
104:
100:
198:
341:
952:
754:
839:
381:
987:
517:
40:
386:
835:
791:
566:
333:
716:
Seven days is the normal run for a deletion discussion. And the other articles haven't been flagged for merge.
329:
966:
721:
657:
642:
608:
578:
549:
459:
406:
351:
317:
61:
630:
53:
983:
36:
863:. Not sure what this is doing at AfD. At worst it is a merge and it stands in its own right anyway.
218:
565:
Keep. It is a battle honour, but under common name, and how it appears in articles ought to be at
962:
917:
882:
825:
739:
717:
705:
676:
652:
638:
603:
593:
574:
544:
525:
511:
500:
473:
455:
436:
422:
401:
390:
367:
346:
267:
247:
57:
337:
651:
Yes, I know, but it does not redirect to anything talking about a battle honour of that name.
321:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
982:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
602:
We don't have an article for North-West Europe 1940 and I haven't seen any sources for that.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
634:
931:
899:
894:
I see 4 keep votes and 1 merge? I don't see a merge consensus? And I'm not voting for it.
868:
847:
799:
300:
283:
771:
913:
878:
821:
735:
701:
672:
589:
521:
496:
469:
432:
418:
393:
363:
263:
243:
325:
397:
157:
926:
The conversation here takes precedence. I don't see much consensus there either.
927:
895:
864:
843:
810:
795:
877:
We already agreed it a merge. There are open questions of where to merge.
320:
confirms that it is an official battle honour and was awarded to the
978:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
955:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
757:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
734:. Can I withdraw the AfD now, or do we wait and let it run?
543:
coastal raids, so perhaps it should have a separate section.
765:
There isn't clear consensus for a merger yet (and where to).
818:
Talk:North-West_Europe_campaign_of_1944–45#Merge_proposal
732:
Talk:North-West_Europe_campaign_of_1944–45#Merge_proposal
153:
149:
145:
217:
961:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
768:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
231:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
990:). No further edits should be made to this page.
295:Note: This discussion has been included in the
278:Note: This discussion has been included in the
258:Note: This discussion has been included in the
280:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
260:list of History-related deletion discussions
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
297:list of France-related deletion discussions
56:, as post-AFD action, looks the way to go.
910:Talk:North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45
294:
277:
257:
489:North-West Europe 1942 (battle honour)
380:, but that is just a renaming issue.
120:North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45
72:North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
520:article would make the most sense.
669:North-West Europe campaign of 1940
493:North-West Europe campaign of 1940
316:. If existence is the issue, then
24:
730:OK, I tagged them; discussion at
518:North-West Europe (battle honour)
834:I have clarified there. I think
96:Introduction to deletion process
1:
342:Royal Leicestershire Regiment
840:Western Front (World War II)
790:all the battle honours into
400:. There will be many more.
387:Honourable Artillery Company
912:. Join there if you want.
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1007:
836:North West Europe campaign
792:North West Europe campaign
971:21:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
744:22:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
726:21:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
710:14:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
681:14:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
663:10:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
647:10:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
614:10:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
598:06:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
588:not part of that series?
583:06:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
567:North-West Europe 1944-45
555:10:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
530:23:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
505:22:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
478:22:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
464:17:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
441:15:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
427:15:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
412:11:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
372:03:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
357:23:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
334:South Lancashire Regiment
306:06:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
289:06:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
272:05:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
252:05:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
66:22:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
980:Please do not modify it.
936:19:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
922:19:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
904:18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
887:18:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
873:16:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
852:21:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
830:06:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
804:19:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
781:19:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
330:East Lancashire Regiment
32:Please do not modify it.
631:North-West Europe 1940
84:Articles for deletion
391:Manchester Regiment
763:Relisting comment:
394:Parachute Regiment
973:
783:
779:
633:is a redirect to
571:North West Europe
322:Royal Scots Greys
308:
291:
274:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
998:
960:
958:
956:
814:
778:
776:
769:
767:
760:
758:
635:Battle of France
515:
236:
235:
221:
173:
161:
143:
81:
34:
1006:
1005:
1001:
1000:
999:
997:
996:
995:
994:
988:deletion review
974:
951:
949:
808:
784:
772:
770:
753:
751:
509:
178:
169:
134:
118:
115:
78:
75:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1004:
1002:
993:
992:
959:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
766:
761:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
713:
712:
698:Close as merge
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
535:
534:
533:
532:
482:
481:
480:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
429:
310:
309:
292:
275:
239:
238:
175:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1003:
991:
989:
985:
981:
976:
975:
972:
968:
964:
963:Just Chilling
957:
954:
937:
933:
929:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
906:
905:
901:
897:
893:
890:
889:
888:
884:
880:
876:
875:
874:
870:
866:
862:
859:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
832:
831:
827:
823:
819:
812:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
786:
785:
782:
777:
775:
764:
759:
756:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
728:
727:
723:
719:
718:GraemeLeggett
715:
714:
711:
707:
703:
699:
696:
695:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
665:
664:
661:
660:
656:
655:
650:
649:
648:
644:
640:
639:GraemeLeggett
636:
632:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
615:
612:
611:
607:
606:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
586:
585:
584:
580:
576:
575:GraemeLeggett
572:
568:
564:
563:
556:
553:
552:
548:
547:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
531:
527:
523:
519:
513:
512:Spinningspark
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
461:
457:
456:Peterkingiron
453:
450:
442:
438:
434:
430:
428:
424:
420:
415:
414:
413:
410:
409:
405:
404:
399:
395:
392:
388:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
369:
365:
360:
359:
358:
355:
354:
350:
349:
343:
339:
335:
331:
328:confirms the
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:
311:
307:
304:
303:
298:
293:
290:
287:
286:
281:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
256:
255:
254:
253:
249:
245:
234:
230:
227:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
184:
181:
180:Find sources:
176:
172:
168:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
58:Just Chilling
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
979:
977:
950:
891:
860:
787:
773:
762:
752:
697:
658:
653:
609:
604:
570:
550:
545:
484:
451:
407:
402:
398:Scots Guards
377:
352:
347:
340:cofirms the
313:
301:
284:
240:
228:
222:
214:
207:
201:
195:
189:
179:
166:
77:
54:WP:MERGEPROP
49:
47:
31:
28:
205:free images
774:Sandstein
302:CASSIOPEIA
285:CASSIOPEIA
984:talk page
382:this page
338:this page
326:this page
318:this page
37:talk page
986:or in a
953:Relisted
914:Dicklyon
879:Dicklyon
822:Dicklyon
755:Relisted
736:Dicklyon
702:Dicklyon
673:Dicklyon
667:It's at
654:Spinning
605:Spinning
590:Dicklyon
546:Spinning
522:Dicklyon
497:Dicklyon
495:, yes?
470:Dicklyon
433:Dicklyon
419:Dicklyon
403:Spinning
378:campaign
364:Dicklyon
348:Spinning
264:Dicklyon
244:Dicklyon
164:View log
105:glossary
39:or in a
211:WP refs
199:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
491:, and
485:Merge?
183:Google
141:delete
928:Szzuk
896:Szzuk
865:Szzuk
844:Srnec
811:Srnec
796:Srnec
788:Merge
659:Spark
610:Spark
551:Spark
408:Spark
353:Spark
226:JSTOR
187:books
171:Stats
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
967:talk
932:talk
918:talk
900:talk
892:Huh?
883:talk
869:talk
861:Keep
848:talk
826:talk
800:talk
740:talk
722:talk
706:talk
677:talk
643:talk
594:talk
579:talk
526:talk
501:talk
474:talk
460:talk
452:Keep
437:talk
423:talk
368:talk
332:and
314:Keep
268:talk
248:talk
219:FENS
193:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
62:talk
50:keep
794:. —
324:.
233:TWL
162:– (
969:)
934:)
920:)
902:)
885:)
871:)
850:)
842:.
828:)
820:.
802:)
742:)
724:)
708:)
679:)
645:)
637:.
596:)
581:)
528:)
503:)
476:)
462:)
439:)
425:)
396:,
389:,
370:)
336:,
299:.
282:.
270:)
262:.
250:)
213:)
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
64:)
965:(
930:(
916:(
898:(
881:(
867:(
846:(
824:(
813::
809:@
798:(
738:(
720:(
704:(
675:(
641:(
592:(
577:(
524:(
514::
510:@
499:(
472:(
458:(
435:(
421:(
366:(
266:(
246:(
237:)
229:·
223:·
215:·
208:·
202:·
196:·
190:·
185:(
177:(
174:)
167:·
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.