Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germany and weapons of mass destruction

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Germany and weapons of mass destruction
Looks like anti-German propaganda to me, nothing here is really educational. 80.131.68.126 10:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete If people who start an article can't be bothered to observe the neutrality policy their work should be deleted to demonstrate strong disapproval of their approach. It shouldn't be left for others to battle to correct it - or worse, left as it is. New articles are only legitimate if they are neutral. Better to wait for someone to start this again. Osomec 11:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV crud. Unlikely to ever get better. --Apyule 11:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Keep after very good edits by Christopher Parham. --Apyule 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote. BorgQueen 12:59, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid and interesting topic, although it probably needs to be stubbified down to the lead only. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:24, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote; Parham's argument is persuasive. Dottore So 16:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete an article about WMD in a country that....has no WMD? -Splash 16:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd care to nominate Brazil and weapons of mass destruction, Canada and weapons of mass destruction, Poland and weapons of mass destruction, Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction, and perhaps Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Iran and weapons of mass destruction? Why does the existence of this article depend on Germany having weapons of mass destruction? The article certainly makes no claim that it does. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:58, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
 * First, saying in VfD that "we should keep X because you didn't nominate Y" is rarely a meaningful argument. Second, I'm not going to deal with the last two examples you cite, for reasons which I imagine are obvious. As to the first three, the Brazil article says, amongst other things, "...a covert nuclear weapons program was pursued by Brazil under a military government in the 1980s.", the Canada article says plenty about why the issue is important there: it evidently decided an election and they were partners in the Manhattan Project, the Poland article says "...during communist times had active programs in the development of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons". The Taiwan article is more difficult, and could perhaps be discussed, but, the statement from Beijing that the obtainment of nuclear capability would lead to "immediate attack" with all the geopolitical implications of that is fairly important. The Germany article, on the other hand, offers no significance to the issue of WMD in Germany at present or in the past (apart from component manufacture which most industrialized nations do too).-Splash 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Looks sufficiently NPOV to me; that is an editing issue, the article is good enough and about an important subject. --Mysidia (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting subject, and stating that Germany has no WMD is clearly an oversimplification. Moreover, Germany at least had WMD in the past. Keep. --DrTorstenHenning 17:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Did they? When? If they did, it should be added to the article and it would then probably by keepable. The WW2 V-rockets don't count. They were just missiles. -Splash 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Added. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:26, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
 * Mmmmmmmm. I suspected this was what was in mind. In which case, the article ought to be reduced down to that stub; at that point I would vote to delete such a small stub since it is covered far better in the articles you mention in that sentence. -Splash 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And at least during the 1980s, AFAIK nuclear WMD were stored in Germany, and the German Army (Bundeswehr) maintained Artillery Special Platoons (Artillerie-Spezialzüge) that were equipped and trained to handle nuclear ammo. --DrTorstenHenning 17:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Forms part of a corpus of analysis broken down by country, even if inadequately for the moment. Dottore So 19:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has been improved significantly, due to such impressive work done by Parham. BorgQueen 20:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Inclusive of state of non-mass-destructiveness. Absence of something does not mean an article saying it is absent is nesesarily irrelevant. --zippedmartin 23:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid topic. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-15 02:57
 * Keep. Good rewrite. -Hmib 04:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to a better name and merge 24.1.97.187 05:24, 15 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.