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. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Vanuatu[edit]

Military of Vanuatu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Subject won't ever be anything more than a stub or small entry. The article has been a stub since 2002. I've already taken the little information that the article contained and put it into the Vanuatu article ([1]) so that it wouldn't be lost. Cla68 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete It will never be expanded, I think. Since it's already merged with Vuanatu, the article isn't much important. by Snowolf (talk) on 04:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect changed for Kirill Lokshin by Snowolf (talk) on 04:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect; nothing to merge, but no reason to make searching more difficult than it needs to be. Kirill Lokshin 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, changing my vote to redirect ;-) by Snowolf (talk) on 04:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would keep as this is a standard subarticle to have for sovereign countries, and it facilitates categorization. They are also periodically in the news[2] so the article has potential for expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll create it when we need to. They only have a paramilitary right now. --Ineffable3000 05:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Ineffable3000, at the moment there isn't much need of such an article by Snowolf (talk) on 05:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted below, we can categorize a redirect to the appropriate section of the Vuanatu article, leaving us with the same navigation and categorization as before. We can always break out the separate article again if/when someone actually wants to write one; but, given that there's no assurance that one can be written, including the available material directly in the main article seems like a cleaner approach. Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect support also. Cla68 06:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ... holy cow, are you serious??? Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 14:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but that's why we're discussing a merge/redirect, not an outright deletion, now. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. Until such time as we can categorize redirects, so that a redirect page can appear in Category:Military by country, this should remain. Until then, even if a tiny paramilitary is all they have, this page should stay, if only to avoid WP:BIAS. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth pointing out that we can categorize redirects? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung.-- danntm ^T _C 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung (occasional news coverage) and Smerdis of Tlön (WP:BIAS). Additional information may be available in print sources. The article could use some cleanup, however, as right now it just seems to be copied from the CIA World Factbook.Black Falcon 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems to be appropriate here, but only due to the total lack of information on the subject. Nlsanand 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to the justifications provided by Dhartung and Smerdis of Tlön, redirects discourage expansion (indeed, they have been used as surrogate deletions). Indeed, if the country primarily has to outsource its military, there ought to be some discussion of that somewhere, possibly in local press. Serpent's Choice 00:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I suspect that more could be said about this topic. For example, our article on Espiritu Santo (island) which is part of Vanuatu states "Between May and August 1980 the island was the site of a rebellion during the transfer of power over the colonial New Hebrides from the British–French Condominium to independent Vanuatu. Jimmy Stevens' Nagriamel movement, in alliance with private French interests and backed by American libertarians hoping to establish a tax-free haven, declared the island of Espiritu Santo independent of the new government. British Royal Marines and a unit of the French Garde Mobile were deployed to the nation's capital island but did not invade Espiritu Santo as the soon-to-be government had hoped. The troops were recalled shortly before independence. Following independence Vanuatu, now governed by Father Walter Lini, requested assistance from Papua New Guinea, whose forces invaded and restored order on Espiritu Santo." Capitalistroadster 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung and Capitalistroadster.-gadfium 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per user Capitalistroadster. Wikipedia is systematically biased against subjects with little available info; there's a massive amount of information about the militaries of the Pacific that could be added if people had all the local newspapers available. It doesn't much make it into books, unfortunately.

Buckshot06 07:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, is such a tiny article it is almost a blank page! I'll fully support it being on its own page if only it had at least one whole paragraph! But as it is now it is just one little sad article, it should go join up with its Daddy! Another comment, when the main article [3] goes into greater detail than the subarticle you know something is wrong! Mathmo ^Talk 09:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This is Vanuatu's military and there's no good reason to redirect it to another topic as there's the potential to expand it, though the current article is very lacking. --Nick Dowling 09:15, 19 January 2007 (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.