Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East

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 delete. Sandstein 09:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The report exists, but does not seem to be notable. The article just lists the table of contents. What effect did it have on US foreign policy? Rusf10 (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While passing WP:V, this doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. I don't think anything here needs to be merged with James Van Fleet.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge briefly to James Van Fleet. His article says nothing of the mission that resulted in this report, so that a summary would make a useful addition to his bio. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So he wrote a report. No evidence that it is notable. Looked it up in The Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Policy 1953-1954. You can find it on pp. 250-251 and 279. The NSC did not adopt his recommendations. Perhaps worth a sentence in his bio. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it might merit a mention in the James Van Fleet article, there is nothing here to suggest the report is notable enough to have an article of its own. Dunarc (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2017 (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.