Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vetos exercised by the US government in the UN Security Council

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 merge to List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions. Sandstein 12:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of vetos exercised by the US government in the UN Security Council[edit]

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

This page appears to be a poorly sourced, highly editorialized, and factually incorrect page that was translated from a non-English Wikipedia page.

1. According to List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions and the official UN source, the last US veto was in 2011. This page alleges that there has been 20+ since then. This article seems to be a list of nay votes by the US (however, I suspect it isn't exhaustive), as opposed to veto votes by the US.

2. The formatting is a complete mess. One column alternately displays years and vote counts, with many vote counts being '?'.

3. The references are a mess with reference number 8 including up to 'ci' but also having about as many different Wikipedia links. Additionally, the references are used to editorialize. One reference to a 1985 vote is "To learn more, see: US support for the Nazism" which is another non-English translated Wikipedia page of questionable quality that doesn't even discuss anything beyond the 1920s. Another reference is "The efficiency of the questioned National Security Agency is zero, as shown | here". There seems to be a heavy anti-US slant in this article, as exemplified by the "see also" which includes the unrelated topics of Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden, List of wars involving the United States, and Israel and the apartheid analogy.

List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions is a perfectly good resource for all of the US veto votes. No other country has their own list of vetos, I don't see why the US would need one. Especially, one of so poor quality as this article is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User578918 (talk • contribs) 20:45, November 3, 2016 (UTC)

Merge to List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions per nom's rationale which I find well reasoned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The advantage of a country specific listing is that these vetos are generally done for ideological or strategic reasons and this is best illustrated by dividing the vetos up into country specific groups. They are also very much influenced by the era in which they took place so it is useful to also have them in chronological order. Yes, List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions has the option to order ALL the vetos in chronological order and has the option to break down the vetos into country by country order, but it does not have the option to group an individual country into their individual chronological order - so some usefulness will be lost in such a merge. If a merge is to take place, the article content on what a veto is and criticism of their use should be retained and expanded to suit the other article. Content detailing the number of UN votes the veto effectively ignored also seems important data, so woiuld need to be transferred. The more descriptive detailing of what was being vetoed given on this article also seems more useful. If such data cannot be transferred, I would be against a merge. Also, regarding the claim that nay votes are being counted as vetos, in news reports there often is a colloquial use of the word "veto" to describe a situation where either Russia or America votes against, or threatens to vote against, a resolution. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will reproduce here the comment I made on the merger discussion. I do not think that the two articles should be merged. They do not address the same issues. This article is not limited to the explicit uses of the veto, but acknowledges rather the use of US international influence to stop resolutions from passing. This should be made more clear in the article. The article has also been justly criticized for being editorialized. If these issues are addressed then there is no reason the article could not exist independently. However, I do not think that a merge is the solution. Auguel (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the various lists of terrorists and terrorist groups cost to upgrade, the UN website has this delay in information as well.201.17.176.35 (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A page listing Security Council resolutions vetoed by the United States (and comparable pages for each of the other permanent members, i.e. the U.K., France, the USSR/Russian Federation, and China) would be worthwhile. This page seems deeply confused, however, in that it combines votes in the Security Council with votes in the General Assembly, in which the veto power does not exist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2016 (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.