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. The source-based arguments to keep carry the day per WP:GNG. As has been pointed out here, just because something does not (yet) exist does not mean we can't have an article on it if there is adequate sourcing - original research is defined by the non-existence of sources, not by the non-existence of the subject in physical form - nor is the article being short a deletion rationale per WP:DEL. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Legion (Proposed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable proposal. The book reference is a modified PhD thesis (and calls it a "UN Legion"); other references are speculation at webforums and a self-published article by Edward Luttwak [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And....?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A rationale for deletion that points out that the article is sourced to an entire book on the subject written by a subject expert who has a doctorate in international relations from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, is not a very good one at all.

  Reading the book, I find that this article is what we call a good stub with clear context and plenty of scope for expansion, nominated for deletion less than 24 hours after it was created. Far from being a one-person idea discussed by a (subject expert) second person, the subject expert right after discussing Luttwak's January 1993 proposal on the very same page proceeds to discuss a June 1993 proposal by Brian Urquhart. Yes, that Brian Urquhart.

  Once one factors Urquhart's name in, one find sources just rolling out, including: ISBN 9780275969066 p. 19, which includes two Secretary-Generals and proposals made at the time of the Korean War into the mix of stuff available for expanding this article, and cites a whole bunch of sources to look at; p. 45 and the whole of Sverre Lodgaard's chapter in ISBN 9783663092254; Adam Roberts' entire chapter in ISBN 9780199583300 that is even entitled "Proposals for standing UN forces: A critial history"; Urquhart xyrself, Robert C. Johansen (professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame), and others in ISBN 9780971072763; and another subject expert with a doctorate (Annie Herro, with a PhD from the University of Sydney and now a research fellow there) writing ISBN 9781317812296.

  And that's simply where I stopped looking rather than where the available sources stop. So let me modify the above to a good stub with clear context and plenty of scope for expansion from subject expert sources, discoverable with about 5 minutes' effort of simple reading, beginning with the very sources cited, even by me. It actually took longer to type this in than to read and to find the stuff. Per Wikipedia:deletion policy we do not delete such things. Titles are fixable with the move tool that everyone with an account has, no administrator required.

  Uncle G (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge - This could be merged with United Nation or United Nations peacekeeping#Proposed_reform. However as there is basically nothing of substance to this article, there doesn't seem to be much point unless someone expands upon it. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please familiarize yourself with the article development process. Lots of our articles started as good stubs with clear context and plenty of scope for expansion. Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - the subject, a "UN Legion" or similar, is definitely notable in terms of the WP:GNG, with antecedents including the recent Hero book, and earlier, Christopher Bellamy, Knights in White Armour, [2], 1996, suggesting a "UN Legion". There is also a enthusiastic Portuguese former Foreign Legion guy suggesting a "Single European Regiment" along much the same lines. The question is what exactly to call it. 'Proposed international volunteer intervention force' covers most of the parameters. It is definitely more specific and of separate notability to reforms to the current peacekeeping model. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) is what Herro calls it, but that's the specific name of one idea. Roberts and others talk more generally of proposals for standing UN forces. I expect Herro's name, Urquhart's United Nations Volunteer Military Force, Boutros-Ghali's United Nations Rapid Reaction Force, the Dutch United Nations Rapid Deployment Brigade, and suchlike to be redirects. But none of this is a matter for AFD, and does not involve administrators and administrator-only tools.

    There's another Bellamy, by the way, professor Alex J. Bellamy of the University of Queensland and yet another subject expert, who gives a very brief précis of Roberts in ISBN 9780745641867 pages 168–169. doi:10.1080/03071840802249604 looks interesting, too.

    Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge: Many have ideas, however, we are not repository for that. This could be well merged to UN article not an independent one when it is just an idea (which would filled with OR and primary sources). Or should we go through all the alternative proposition in the way that UN or the US could existed? I'm pretty sure a lot of people have had ideas about how it could be different. Viztor (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldn't be filled with original research if it were based upon the entire chapters and even entire books on the subject written by subject experts that I mentioned above. Did you look at any of the things cited at all? Uncle G (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are sci-fi out there for just about anything, does that mean all these inventions in these books are worth an encyclopedia article? Albeit there may be ideas about it, but what could really be said about an army that exist only on paper? We all know what an army is, just different owners. All that is there to say is nothing more than speculation. Viztor (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • yes, if there are enough independent sources that discuss them. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons provided by my uncle. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GNG, with the article sources and those listed by above, a big thanks to Uncle G for including them here and for putting up their hand to improve this article, do agree that some sort of rename is needed (with "United Nations" in there to make it easier for search engines?). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2019 (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.