Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union rapid reaction mechanism

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Union rapid reaction mechanism[edit]

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

Not notable, and the majority of the article is an unsourced quote -- Smurfy 05:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an aspect of international law discussed in reliable sources. (WP:BEFORE) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Roscelese said. Mr. Jones (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT as the long quote is likely beyond the threshold to make it WP:COPYVIO - and the quote is essentially the article's whole content. This may well be notable but this is not the article to feature it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 05:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 07:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It strikes me that Instrument for Stability says as much (though not the same information) about RRM as this article does, and anything else one might want to say could be integrated there with a redirect. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important article which is different to Instrument for Stability. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be “important” when it basically doesn't say anything? Flesh it out or nuke it. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether the right response would be to improve the article, rather than to delete it. It could be quite an important aspect of the European Union, but at present, the article is rather brief, so it needs rather a lot of work.ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Instrument for Stability, leaving redirect behind, as some kind of middle-ground between WP:TNT and doing nothing. Der yck C. 11:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Common Security and Defence Policy of which this was a part, per sources such as this. It's painful to see one ponderous bureaucracy trying to deconstruct another; it's WP:LIGHTBULB squared. But it's good that the EU doesn't throw ordnance around with the aggressive abandon of some editors who are quick to suggest TNT or even nukes. Warden (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2012 (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.