Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepcut Barracks

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, 11k, 1d(nominator), 1 anon, 1 repeat discounted and Oirvin too since ~20 edits at that point. Already listed for expansion. -Splash 01:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deepcut Barracks

The page is biased and does not present both side of the story, it has no relevance. (ColeR 04/07/05 @ 1832)

• Keep. If the article is indeed biased, it should be improved, rather than deleted. --MarkSweep 4 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
• Keep. Article should be added to. BBC has info on it as do quite a few other sources. Oirvine 4 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)
• Keep. VfD is not an appropriate mechanism for dealing with POV issues. Although there may be a problem with the article, this is an inappropriate use of the VfD process. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
• Keep. It needs cleanup and expansion, but there's no reason not to have an article about Deepcut Barracks. -- Necrothesp 4 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
• Keep I was bold and added the expand tag, and listed on pages for expansion so keep assuming that this page will be expanded. Jtkiefer July 4, 2005 19:17 (UTC)
• Keep of course. And needs expanding. It's an army barracks in the UK that has been under scrutiny for some time due to a number of bullying cases and suicides which may or may not have been a result of the aforementioned bullying. Jez 4 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable army barracks.Capitalistroadster 5 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
• It is not fact was is written about it and it brings the Army's reputation in to question. Delete. Anonymous comment by 62.171.198.37 (talk · contribs)
• Delete If it is nonbias why does it only mention the deaths and not actually tell you that its the HQ for the Royal Logisitcs???? Delete non notbale and offensive to British Army. Anonymous comment by 62.171.198.6 (talk · contribs)
• Keep as is. Evercat 5 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)
• Delete Not nearly enough info to justifys this pages existence, move to British Army if nessacary. This article cannot be kept. Perhaps the Army should know about this, they may have something to say about this page, perhaps liable?

  Anonymous comment by 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs), the same user who nominated it here.

  Perhaps someone should contact the Army about this page?

  Anonymous comment by 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs)

• Keep, NPOV-ify. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
• Comment. I have added from information from the BBC and links to the BBC News and Scotsman features on this issue. The article is credible, and there is no reason to remove it. Ground Zero 6 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)
• Keep Completely inappropriate nomination. CalJW 6 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
• Keep nuthing wrong.. Needs expanding - put appropriate needs work tag on it -max rspct 7 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)
• Keep The barracks in question is notable because soldiers continue to die there. Arguably the title is misleading since in essence this is not a history item about the barracks but about particular notable events which have happened there.Sandpiper 16:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.