Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NATO supply Line


 * 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   redirect to International Security Assistance Force. I think a redirect/merge best reflects the consensus: those on the keep side argue that an article on ISAF supply lines would have potential, but the keep side appears to accept that the article as drafted is a sub-par attempt with an imprecise title. I don't see the delete side as arguing there is no potential for an article on ISAF supply lines. So, for the time being, this article will be redirected to International Security Assistance Force into which editors can feel free to merge content. There is no prejudice against the creation of a new separate article about ISAF supply lines. If that happens, we may have to re-think the redirect target. Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

NATO supply Line

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is not itself a discrete topic but rather a ubiquitous part of any broader operation. For example, the two articles provided talk about specific incidents that affected supply lines. The articles never are directly about a specific supply line or even the concept of an Afghanistan miltary supply line. Moreover the title is incredibly generic... NATO has undoubtedly had thousands of supply lines in its history.

The concept is explosive too. In theory every conflict in history has had discussion incidentally about its "supply lines." There may be specific supply lines, the Burma Road that warrant articles. But contrast that with what's here and the incidental versus focused nature is clear.

Last of all, there's almost no content here. We're not losing much. Shadowjams (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to have an article on the NATO supply route,its history and threats to it, thats one of the most discussed topic in the world these days, eventually people would contribute and it would be a great article. Earlyriser10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete The real topic is covered in depth at 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan. The title and content here seems redundant to that and other articles. Warden (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It is connected to Russia and war on terror. Earlyriser10 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, too narrow a topic to be independently notable. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: This topic has its own timeline although depended on other topics, but those can be tagged at main article navigation links at relevant sections. May be the article should be renamed to a more descriptive title or one given by the media or official, like "NATO supply line through Pakistan". The topic is significantly notable and I expect this article will have a timeline like structure when developed. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree that this is too narrow a topic, and the title implies something different from the content. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article sucks at present and is probably miss-titled, this is a very notable topic. A huge amount has been written about the arrangements by which the US/NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan are supplied. Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs to be expanded and improved,probably the title too. But it is an important topic.Earlyriser10 (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete any necessary material can be transferred to International Security Assistance Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep An important topic, especially since the Pakistan routes have been closed. This article needs expansion, categories, and talk page templates. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You aren't addressing any of the reasons in the nomination. And there are still no WP:RS. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per TopGun and Nick-D. Article appears to have signficant coverage in reliable sources and as such is likely notable under WP:GNG. (As a starting point only please see the hundreds of news articles available through Google dating over a period of several years which discuss the topic and the numerous issues which have affected it and ongoing campaign in Afghanistan, not to mention Pakistan and US relations). While I agree with the nominator that the article is in terrible shape and that it would be no great loss if what we currently have was deleted, I would be surprised if this article cannot be developed with the material available (should editors with suitable knowledge be willing to work on it). It should probably be renamed too. Anotherclown (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only plausible keep rationale is of the type you're giving here... I agree that perhaps in some form there could be some article discussion NATO logistics... but my point is that article doesn't seem to exist. There is nothing here to even build upon in that sense, and even in cases where we have a title that's plausible, we don't even have that here. For instance everyone's focused on Afghanistan supply routes but that's a tiny part of NATO's history. A rename is one of the many fundamental changes that would be required. And so while I understand the rationale of your, and I think all of the Keep votes here, I just don't see how the article we're discussing is the one you're !voting on. Shadowjams (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has one liners as sections currently. Strictly speaking you can shuffle it to anything, but the basis this article is pointing out is the stereotypical controversial supply route of NATO through Pakistan which has repeatedly been closed and has a history attached to it. This has notable coverage and the fact itself would let it build. The name being clear would help, but the current content of the article does give an indication, to those who are familiar, of what to build on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete would be better as part of International Security Assistance Force MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to International Security Assistance Force. Instead of adding things to the original stub article it'd be best to work on the existing article MilborneOne found.  A notable subject, but its already covered there.   D r e a m Focus  15:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge content into International Security Assistance Force. Every NATO mission is going to have a supply line, this is specifically about the logistics of ISAF, therefore it belongs in the ISAF article.  EricSerge (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2011 (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.