Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military equipment of the European Union


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Military equipment of the European Union

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article lumps together all the military equipment and weapons of member states as if they are available to the EU. Very few military assets are directly assigned to EU missions so this article is very misleading. The only "military equipment of the EU" is material directly held by the EU Military Staff, so this article's misleading nature means it should be deleted. The military equipment of the EU Military Staff can be addressed on that page. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is properly cited and the lead clearly explains the context.
 * "This article outlines the military equipment owned by the member states of the European Union (EU), multinational procurement and EU-level facilitation of such procurement."
 * "In accordance with the Treaty on European Union it is the national armed forces' assets that are made available for the implementation of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), which involves overseas operations (since 2003) and an obligation of collective self-defence."
 * I don't see an issue with it. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  04:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know all that much about the topic, so I'm withdrawing my comments and deferring to more knowledgeable editors. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  17:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per (see here) - the WOLF  child  04:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete on account of subject lacking independent notability, then Merge what's not already there to the Common Security and Defence Policy article about the European Union's defense arrangement. No encyclopaedic purpose is served by having a separate article for its weaponry. -The Gnome (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge what could be merged into Common Security and Defence Policy or EU Battlegroup (if possible), per Gnome. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The CSDP article would become too big if these tables were merged into it. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lists are collapsible in Wikipedia so as to enable editors to include long tables and lists inside articles. See H:COLS and Template:Collapsible list/doc. -The Gnome (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the tip. However I don't see why these tables can't be in a separate article if it's acceptable to have these in Wikipedia at all. -Ssolbergj (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the lists are kept in a separate article, deleted, or merged, is the issue discussed in this ongoing AfD. All I did was point out that the  technical objection raised against merging the lists is groundless because of H:COLS. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, misleading. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article is seriously misleading. It seeks to project the idea of a unified EU military capacity when all the assets are under national command. The inclusion of the Border and Coastguard agency is wrong as it is not a military organisation. The mention of Multinational development suggesting it is or was EU led is simply untrue, all of the material listed were the result of individual companies and sovereign states which just happen to be in a country which is part of the EU collaborating. The EDA has produced nothing as yet. The tables give an EU total under states for each type of materiel (which even include Denmark which has opted out of the EU Military arrangements) when in fact the EU has nothing, the sovereign states comprising the EU control everything. A true title for the article would be Military equipment of the sovereign states comprising the EU however then the text would have to be totally rewritten to eliminate any POV editing so its simpler to delete the article and await someone creating a factual article without spin Lyndaship (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment "The mention of Multinational development suggesting it is or was EU led is simply untrue" The article doesn't state that all multinational development is led by the EU, but it does point out where the EU seeks to facilitate such processes. I agree that excluding Denmark would make sense. I don't see what's POV in the article currently, and a title such as Military equipment of the sovereign states comprising the EU would be ludicrous and POV - referring to them as member states is conventional. But if people want a rename, that's fine. Please propose a serious new title in that case. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment In case you missed it my vote was Delete. No problem with a new article using member states as opposed to sovereign states. I'm not surprised you see no POV in the existing article or title - you created it! Lyndaship (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Then, instead of a ‘new’ article a rename would be appropriate. 95% of the content was created by other editors. And in any case, let’s discuss the article’s content instead of raising doubts about other’s motives.-Ssolbergj (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I invite other editors to look at the revision history and the xtools page history which shows that 97.7% of the text has been added by you (Ssolberg). Lyndaship (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have created 0% of the tables, which constitute most of the article. And who's made the content is irrelevent anyway. - Ssolbergj (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Member states' capabilities are highly relevant as the CSDP involves a mutual defence clause. The range of equipment that may be used in 'ordinary' EU operations is also relevant. The European Defence Fund also marks the EU's entry into the domain of facilitating the national aquisition of defence equipment as well as funding defence equipment research. The article makes no secret of the fact that the equipment is owned by the member states. The name is [...] of the European Union, not [...] owned by the EU. The content is relevant in any case, and if Wikipedians believe the current title is misleading I'd be ok with it being renamed National military equipment of the European Union, Military equipment of European Union member states or something similar. A decade ago I'd support the article's deletion, but the remarkable development of the CSDP recently justifies its existance entirely in my opinion. - Ssolbergj (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment New editors should note that the article's present intro is quite sober and precise, before they react based merely on the article title: "This article outlines the military equipment owned by the member states of the European Union (EU), multinational procurement and EU-level facilitation of such procurement. In accordance with the Treaty on European Union it is the national armed forces' assets that are made available for the implementation of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), which involves overseas operations (since 2003) and an obligation of collective self-defence.[a] It should be noted that CSDP decisions, adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC), generally require unanimity between member states. Consequently, any deployment of national assets in a CSDP context is voluntary on the member state's part." And as I've mentioned, renaming the article is clearly an option in any case. I do however believe the EU connection, through the CSDP, justifies the article's existence, based on arguments shown above. -Ssolbergj (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Extremely misleading. All equipment should be already covered under the various nations' respective military articles or list articles thereof. - BilCat (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is factually correct. Compare, for example, the listing of the Italian armed forces in the contested article with the articles on Italian Army, Italian Navy, and Italian Air Force. -The Gnome (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I suppose the relevant question in this case is wheter an overview of CSDP member states' equipment is something Wikipedia should have. (I think it should.) What you refer to as misleading is a different matter, and is unclear. - Ssolbergj (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, "an overview of CSDP member states' equipment is" 'not' "something Wikipedia should have", as it implies the EU has a dedicated military force of its own. That is what is misleading. - BilCat (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:TOOSOON. While it is quite likely the EU will field a common army if it continues on its current path, this has not come yet to pass. EU level military cooperation is quite limited and scoped to very particular issues (e.g. the immigration ships in the Mediterranean) - without a formal structure in place for large scale hostilities (which would probably be NATO led).Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Rename - distinctly misleading as it stands, but the actual content of the article would seem a reasonable basis for an article. As Ssolbergj points out, anyone who is happy with the content but thinks it is misleading/misdirecting etc and wants a new article should be asking for a re-naming. As the initial suggestion for comments, I offer:
 * Military equipment of European Union member states
 * -Nosebagbear
 * Support rename I support Nosebagbear's proposal. This really is about member states' capabilities, and how these are procured and developed - sometimes in a multinational context, and in the years ahead likely supported by the European Defence Fund as mentioned in this news article for instance. -Ssolbergj (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the title is definitely better but is anyone happy with the existing content (other than the creator)? I refer editors to a previous blanked article which had to my mind more balanced and nuanced text created by multiple editors. This article was redirected to the CSDP article after a poorly commented merge request. It was also the source of the unattributed tables in the current article Lyndaship (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The merger of CSDP and ‘Military of the EU’ was in fact undertaken by conventional procedure. And I would like to underline that the tables were made by other editors. - Ssolbergj (talk)


 * Delete The EU itself is not a military alliance. 344917661X (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - that wasn't denied by anyone on the "keep side". Their argument is that as a close political group with a mutual defence obligation this was a reasonable list of lists. What specific grounds do you think justify deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs)
 * The EU's mutual defense obligations are very weak - extremely weak - while the clause does enable cooperation, it does not require it. It furthermore has a carve out for members pursing a neutrality strategy and specifics that NATO is the main forum for collective self-defense for those members that are members of NATO - which is most of the EU (with the exception of Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Malta and Cyprus - many of whom have a neutrality police). Saying that this state of affairs is a firm commitment for mutual defense is stretching it - and furthermore implementation is bilateral (between states) without involving the EU's appartus.Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is speculation to claim that the EU mutual defence clause is weak. The Western European Union - a mutual defence alliance - was dissolved because it was considered redundant after the Treaty of Lisbon gave the EU its own mutual defence clause. The treaty reads: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power" Although untested, this is in fact a legal requirement.-Ssolbergj (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It actually has been tested..Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it has been activated once. Many would however argue that this was purely symbolic move by the French president, and that the significant question is how it would be upheld if let's say Finland was attacked by another state. That would be the true test. - Ssolbergj (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - First of all, as the article itself clarifies, there is no unified command and the military "body" of the EU itself cannot buy much more than office equipment. Therefore all these assets are entirely notional.  Any Wikipedia readers will be misled by this article discussing an imaginary army.  Europe's defense, to the degree it may exist, is entirely predicated on NATO and on national defense forces.  To further twist the knife on just how misleading this article is, did anyone read the news last week?  Germany, for example, has only 4 out of 138 Eurofighter jets combat ready. . In February it had 9 Leopard/2 tanks ready —out of a NATO commitment of 44.  Same with the Tornado jets and CH-53 helos.  Now look, these comments are quite relevant... the article as it exists is misleading to the reader.  The force it describes has no mandate; the force has no commander, and the "assets" it describes exist only as equipment in various states of disrepair inside warehouses, not as actionable "military equipment." Finally, what's up with the "Industry" section?  No sources, and while having an industry means potential, it has zero relevance to an entry entitled "Military equipment of the EU".  Nuke the article from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.XavierItzm (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment 1) Common Security and Defence Policy clarifies what the EU's operational commands are. The Military Planning and Conduct Capability is being established as a single EU operational command, whose authority is expected include operations with combat elements from late 2018. 2) The article makes no secret of the fact that the assets are owned by the member states. I do however support renaming this article Military equipment of European Union member states. 3) Germany's number of Eurofighters is irrelevant in this context. 4) The article describes no force, it is merely an overview of national capabilities within the CSDP, as well as mulitinational coordination - and EU support - related to development etc. - Ssolbergj (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * CANVASSING A message asking others to comment giving the posters personal view of the discussion has been placed here Lyndaship (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out Lyndaship. Ssolbergj while posting a link to the AfD on the project may be okay, giving your personal view on it outside of the actual AfD is not. I have deleted your personal view from the comment - apologies for amending an editor's comment, but minimising the blowback for Canvassing seemed preferable. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I originally proded the article as I found it misleading, it implied that the EU operates all the military equipment listed (including nuclear weapons - since removed), In fact as a political organisation it doesnt have any standing military force and borrows capability from members on the few occassions it has sanctioned operations in its name when required. Some of the equipment listed is under national and NATO control and highly unlikely would not be released for EU operations. MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, or redirect/merge to Common Security and Defence Policy. Run-of-the-mill list about a notable topic (EU military cooperation). The article does not imply that the equipment is owned or operated by the EU, but rather by its member states. Nonetheless, in view of efforts to bring about EU military integration, the list grouping makes sense.  Sandstein   06:22, 24 June 2018 (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.