Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military of the European Union (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Military_of_the_European_Union
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is no current Military of the EU, only a Common Security and Defence Policy also out-lined in the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore any article suggesting there is an actual military of the EU is simply wrong and misleading. It is also highly political as many nations oppose an EU military. Wikipedia should try and stick to actual truth and not include articles on a EU military that don’t even exist. As the Military of the European Union doesn’t exist I would propose much of the information is moved to its relevant places in the Common Security and Defence Policy. This way the useful information is kept and Wikipedia remains politically correct. After all even suggesting that an EU military exists is going against the Lisbon Treaty and may insult people. It may also suggest EU nations have lost sovereignty over their armed forces, which is not the case. (This nomination is on behalf of, I do not have any opinion on the deletion) Kingpin13 (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is not suggesting that there is any single entity actually called "Military of the European Union", but instead is just using that title for an overview of the military bodies of individual EU states and their co-operation. Also, Common Security and Defence Policy is not the same thing - this article is not covering any specific policy, but is an overview of all military establishments in EU countries (and Common Security and Defence Policy is referred to appropriately). I see no evidence whatsoever that the article is suggesting that "EU nations have lost sovereignty over their armed forces". It all looks pretty factual, NPOV, and very well referenced to me. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename (is renaming an option? apparently not, the Python script crashes) The complaint that there is no Military OF the EU is correct. There are, however, militaries IN the EU.  Given that both national and multinational forces are discussed, I'd rename it Military Forces in the European Union or Militaries in the European Union.  David V Houston (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow... I ECed with you twice, and we both said essentially the same thing. Great minds do think alike!  bahamut0013  words deeds 17:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Common Security and Defence Policy or Rename to Military in the European Union or Militaries of European Union members. That should address both sides's concerns on the last AfD. I do think that the "of the" really does suggest a single unified force where there is none.  bahamut0013  words deeds 17:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Militaries of European Union members would be right, because it is about more than just the individual members' militaries - there is some pan-European collaboration, and there have been some pan-European operations. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  18:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per what Boing said. By the way, I certainly don't think we need an article called 'Militaries of European Union members'. The difference between "in" and "of" is trifle, and considering this article is about integration, in is inadequate. This article is (and should to a greater extent be) about the defence integration which has taken place since the 1950s (obviously outside the CFSP), the concrete steps towards a common military which are being discussed now that the Lisbon Treaty is in force, as well as the factual, powerful presence of national militaries which can't be ignored when the defence of the union is being discussed (especially since the Treaty on European Union contains a mutual defence article, binding the national EU militaries together). These elements can combined be called military of the European Union. Pan-EU forces like Eurofor, Euromarfor, the European Gendarmerie Force and Eurocorps are not part of the CFSP structure, but highly relevant in the military defense of the EU. Therefore, this article is needed with its present title. - SSJ ☎ 18:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree with you, the distinction between "in" and "of" is not trifle at all. The implication that there is actually some sort of unification is simply not true, even if there have been a few baby steps that way and talk of some more. If the article explored the theoretical unified force or unification of those forces, I'd agree that an "of" title would be more appropriate (if you could find some reliable sources for that); but the article as it stands now treats these militiary forces as quite distinct.
 * However, your point about there being much more than just the CSDP has been taken, and I have struck out my merge suggestion.  bahamut0013  words deeds 18:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think the wording makes no difference, we may as well change it. 74.104.103.169 (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

k*Keep   and dscuss the proper name. The topic is rather clearly notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This AFD is absurd and POV, it does not claim there is a unified EU military, it discusses EU military cooperation and the military forces former under the EU and for the EU. I oppose the above proposed rename as the article does not go into detail about members militaries, this is a specific EU discussion. The nominator has just come out of the blue with a POV unsupported by previous reading of the matter. This article should be kept as it is and allowed to grow and evolve. There is nothing misleading or inaccurate in its content.- J.Logan`t : 22:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep just because there is no current military does not mean that the topic does not exist. There have been many proposals for an EU military. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Change name and maybe edit to "Military in the European Union". The EU does not have a military, so the term "Military of the European Union" is inaccurate and misleading.  Some states, such as Ireland, have treaty protocols which affirm their right not to participate in such a military; the fact that some states, notably the UK and France, seek to act as the nucleus for such a putative military does not make it a reality or indeed have any prospect of reality. Editing is needed to remove any indication of a parallel with the Military of the USA. --Red King (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the "in" alternative would be worse, as it sounds strange and would imply 'any' force within the European Union, when integration is the primary focus of the article. It seems like we have a consensus to keep the article, so could we close this delete discussion and instead start a normal Template:Move section in the article's talk page, since that's essentially what's in question? - SSJ ☎ 13:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I second this suggestion.  bahamut0013  words deeds 18:13, 20 April 2010 (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.