Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations peacekeeping

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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 07:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations peacekeeping

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

I propose that this article be merged with 'Peacekeeping'. There is no reason for two separate article. The existence of two articles on largely the same topic has led to lots of duplicated and similar content on the two pages, but also made each page less developed than they could be (because editors maybe only add relevant content to one of the pages when it's actually relevant to both. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first of all you created an AfD request and not a request for merging. You already created a discussion about merging on 1 February 2017 here. As I wrote there: peacekeeping can also be carried out by nations or other entities/groups. The UN is just the most effective and relevant one which doesn't mean it should be merged. Also the content would grow far too long by cramming everything over there. This page is just about the UN's activities and not peacekeeping measures, history and research etc in general. If there is duplicate content please specify which so that we can decide how to proceed with it (such as moving just that content over to the other article). Those articles are indeed related and hence they should link to each other. Content about UN peacekeeping activities goes into the "United Nations peacekeeping" article and content about peacekeeping in general goes to the "peacekeeping" article. Some short info that summarizes UN's activities could be included in the latter article with a link to the main article. Content about peacekeeping activities by other entities could also be split out from that article once it grows large enough.
Sidenote: this AfD was created on just the same day that this article got suggested for In the news and 2 days after the US has cut millions in funding for UN peacekeeping. --Fixuture (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The overwhelming majority of the 'Peacekeeping' article is about UN peacekeeping. The 'UN Peacekeeping' article is so abysmal that the 'Peacekeeping' article actually more comprehensively describes UN peacekeeping.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well if that is true some content from the Peacekeeping article probably needs to be moved here. The "peacekeeping" article seems to be pretty long which could be a hint that content should be moved out of there. Alternatively or additionally transclusion could be used. --Fixuture (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable, well sourced, well written. The content shared among this article, the Peacekeeping article, and United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations probably needs to be sorted out. This AfD seems like a candidate for an admin close because the nom did not ask for a deletion and does not make the case for one. --Lockley (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy reason to delete. A properly-formatted merge proposal with correct tagging of both pages could be discussed at one of the Talk pages per WP:MERGE. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nominator should have read WP:BEFORE. No policy or guideline based reason for deletion is given by the nominator. Ceosad (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasonable for a sub-article to Peacekeeping or possible merging, at some point; on a different note, it could use some copy edit work and additional WP:RS citing, but do not see a reason for deleting. Kierzek (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all peacekeeping is done through the UN. Passes WP:GNG. Reasonable to create a sub-article on the topic. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is well sourced and well covers the subject. Merging into Peacekeeping, would put even more emphasis of peacekeeping by the UN than that is already is in there, or information will just be lost while trimming down. Perhaps more information about NATO and other non-UN peacekeeping should be added into the Peacekeeping article. In terms of a merger History of United Nations peacekeeping could be a candidate for merging into United Nations peacekeeping, but all that should be discussed on respective talk pages, not with a afd. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:01, 9 July 2017 (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.