Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism

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 redirect to War on Terror. The content is available under the redirect for anyone wishing to merge. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism

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

The article is an orphaned stub for more than 3 years and apparently its topic is not that notable. I propose adding the Defense Department's pdf in War on Terror's external links and delete this. JokerXtreme (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for deletion in the past. See previous discussion here. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- JokerXtreme (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to War on Terror. Despite the previous AfD, I don't see this document being any more significant than the billions of others the US military produces. Its notability is dependant on the notability of the WoT itself (i.e. if this was the "National Military Strategic Plan for the Promotion of bahamut0013 from Sergeant to Staff Sergeant", nobody would care), and its third-party coverage is written entirely from the perspective of covering the WoT in general. It would make far more sense (to me) simply to merge this article into a section in the parent article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it notable enough to have its own section? Because at the time, we are struggling to reduce the size of the main article. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, yes, in the sense of the plan as well as the document itself. Otherwise, I would have suggested outright deletion. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a paragraph in a bigger section? I mean, Patriot Act is more notable, but it doesn't have its own section. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense as well. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything particular to suggest? Probably some paragraph to be inserted somewhere in the post 9/11 section of War on Terror. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to War on Terror. Significance of document declined with advent of the Obama Administration, but it is a historic marker on the evolution of US policy. Racepacket (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2010 (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.