- 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) — Yash talk stalk 04:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Nuclear Escalation
- Nuclear Escalation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's an essay. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like unsourced WP:OR. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I will be adding sources. Still learning Wiki format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianstallion1 ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, It is well written well refrenced about the NATO doctrine. The topic is an important fact of history, containing valuable information. It need some work to bring it to Wikipedia standart. So improvement would be the better solution than delet. This was written from a new editor, II think to help him and improve it will bring Wikipedia in the long therm more benefit that delet the work of a new member of Wikipedia who just need some support how to work on wikipedia FFA P-16 ( talk) 05:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, It would make a good linked page for the main page on NATO, where these issues are scarcely addressed. voxcanis ( talk) 13:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Well written and has RS. Cllgbksr ( talk) 06:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to contain important historical information about NATO doctrine during the cold war with sufficient referencing. Could use some polishing to bring it to wiki standards but that is not a reason for deletion. -- Imminent77 (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Well-written and properly sourced article about a notable concept. Alansohn ( talk) 01:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Notable subject. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 08:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Information
If the main source of the article (References 2,3,6-13) is as wrong as its numbers, it must be absolute crap. Only 208 Buccanneers have ever been built, all the other numbers are obviously wrong as well. Is this serious?-- 2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:4519:903E:F3BF:2463 ( talk) 10:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) — Yash talk stalk 04:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Nuclear Escalation
- Nuclear Escalation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's an essay. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like unsourced WP:OR. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I will be adding sources. Still learning Wiki format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianstallion1 ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, It is well written well refrenced about the NATO doctrine. The topic is an important fact of history, containing valuable information. It need some work to bring it to Wikipedia standart. So improvement would be the better solution than delet. This was written from a new editor, II think to help him and improve it will bring Wikipedia in the long therm more benefit that delet the work of a new member of Wikipedia who just need some support how to work on wikipedia FFA P-16 ( talk) 05:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, It would make a good linked page for the main page on NATO, where these issues are scarcely addressed. voxcanis ( talk) 13:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Well written and has RS. Cllgbksr ( talk) 06:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to contain important historical information about NATO doctrine during the cold war with sufficient referencing. Could use some polishing to bring it to wiki standards but that is not a reason for deletion. -- Imminent77 (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Well-written and properly sourced article about a notable concept. Alansohn ( talk) 01:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Notable subject. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 08:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Information
If the main source of the article (References 2,3,6-13) is as wrong as its numbers, it must be absolute crap. Only 208 Buccanneers have ever been built, all the other numbers are obviously wrong as well. Is this serious?-- 2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:4519:903E:F3BF:2463 ( talk) 10:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.