Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Policemen

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 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Four Policemen

Four Policemen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I have a few reasons for nominating this. First, it is a page on a quote by Roosevelt that obviously hasn't made in into mainstream WWII discussion (They call it the Big Three, not the Four Policemen). Second, the article is of poor quality - more than half of it is a quote, and nothing on this article really stands out as something that needs its own article. Also, due to the source of the 'Four Policemen' quote it does not look like there is going to be any more added to this article, other then what is here (In the year of this article's existence, there has only been six edits outside of the original, and looking it over it doesn't look like they did anything more than correct some spelling mistakes.). Thirdly, I have a nagging suspicion that this whole article was created just to prove a point in the arguement about the World War II infobox (About the inclusion of major combatants), that can be found here. Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. As the creator, I must admit that I have no great attachment to the article. It can probably be a footnote in the Allies of WW2 article. All the same, your statement "I have a nagging suspicion that this whole article was created just to prove a point" verges on a breach of WP:AGF. Grant 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep - 1) The Four Powers declaration was an important U.S. foreign policy discussion, this quote sums up the initial reasoning quite well. 2) Stub or not there is material available to expand this, speculating about when and if a stub might or might not be expanded is no reason to delete information. 3) WP:AGF (to second Grant. Awotter (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. I dunno if there was any point-scoring intended or not, but the concept is certainly notable, as a Google Books and Google Scholar search indicates. The idea is particularly important because it was at one point to have constituted an enforcement arm of the UN, something that other founding signatories found ... problematic. --Dhartung | Talk 08:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is notable enough to warrant it's own page. Note how the Big Three does not have it's own page. Grant's idea of putting it as a footnote in the Allies of World War II article seems like a good idea until it can be further expanded. As it is right now it doesn't warrant it's own page. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Big Three was WWII. This was about postwar security. If it belongs anywhere, it's History of the United Nations#Preliminaries. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was WW2 as well. The Chinese military contribution, by both KMT and Communist forces, was in the same ballpark as the USSR, US and UK. The suffering of the population arguably exceeded that of the USSR. Grant 07:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is slighting China here. The point is that the idea of "the Four Policemen" was part of the conception of the postwar security environment. This is how it is used in contemporary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So is there a consensus to have this merged into something? If so, I think Allies of World War II is the best article for it. If there was ever a Big Three article, then it would probably be best in there. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As Dhartung says: google books and google scholar indicate notability; none of the mentions are devoted entirely to discussing the concept, but it seems to be a concept that you can't get around when talking about Roosevelt's vision of post-war diplomacy. Book reviews on JSTOR, going back 40 years and more, indicate the same. Again, as Dhartung says, and as is indicated by such titles as Collective Security and American Foreign Policy: From the League of Nations to NATO, the main context is "postwar security environment", but also to some extent how his view of it shaped FDR's wartime diplomacy. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.