Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations Exploratory Force

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. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Exploratory Force[edit]

Non-notable. Only in-universe citations, can find nothing relating to a worldwide view on subject. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 20:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<s? Merge to The Forever War, Joe Haldeman's classic . This is primarily a detailed plot summary, since Pvt. Mandella's unending indenture to this military unit is the basis for the novel. Given the nature of edit wars, I think that a merger signals a consensus that something should be mentioned within an existing article. If the article is kept, then the title needs to be moved to minimize confusion with the peacekeeping forces of the real United Nations. Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the United Nations Exploratory Force, not the United Nations Emergency Force. I've added this article to the UNEF disambig page to avoid confusion, so why should it be moved? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this imaginary organization doesn't belong on a disambiguation page in the first place. Disambiguation pages are to help navigate between likely search terms, such as Haldeman to distinguish Joe Haldeman from H.R. Haldeman. I cannot imagine that anyone has heard of this particular UNEF except in the context of the book, and that one would search under The Forever War or Joe Haldeman or even William Mandella before searching under UNEF. A merge !vote is a way of saying that we should give people time to move the information before the article is erased. In that this is well-covered in the article about The Forever War, a delete with no redirect would probably be better than a merge and redirect. Mandsford (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real-world applicability, not third party sources, no reason to have such detail in the parent article. gnfnrf (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As noted above there is no real-world applicability, no third party sources, wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a fanzine. Justin talk 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, since the subject can be addressed as part of the synopsis of the plot. As with trivia sections in articles, any new or interesting information can be woven into the article, without ordering a merge. Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2008 (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.