Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operational headquarters 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 keep.  Sandstein  06:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Operational headquarters of the European Union

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unnecessary parial duplicate of Common Security and Defence Policy  DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not correct, as the content isn't in the CSDP article. Moreover, the article has a clear purpose; to outline the EU's list of options for choosing operational headquarters in each mission. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Forks are addressed by merger, not deletion.  The Common Security and Defence Policy page doesn't seem to say much about operational headquarters and this page has plenty of content.  Not seeing a problem requiring any action. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell has not be new page curated reviewed which is a significant milestone and content was recently previously present in source the article as recently 20th September 2019:  and that should probably be the comparison point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ssolbergj is the main contributor for both pages. If they feel a split is appropriate then we should just let them get on with it. Andrew D. (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: My understanding of the background is as follows: Operational headquarters of the European Union was a Splitting by from the Common Security and Defence Policy article.  The Operational headquarters of the European Union was PRODed my myself (and content restored Common Security and Defence Policy) to for non-attribution and dePRODed by Ssolbergj on the basis of I wrote more or less 100% of the content in the first place, so this is not a valid reason for deleting the article..  That claim may be sufficiently true, or perhaps it might not, but quite honestly too much pain for me to check, but regardless I chose to add the attribution for the copy to the talk pages as that covers the problem.  The nom. (an admin and therefore with page curation rights?) has claimed the split was unnecessary.  dislosure: I've had interactions with Ssolbergj recently. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Weak draftify (and restore content to Common Security and Defence Policy): There may well be an article here but in its current state is a hard read (at least to me). Article claims to be amount Military but then does Civilian.  Headquarters seems to be used in both a singular and plural context.  I'm not sure all relevant claims are cited, and some may be significant.  But I am not particularly strong and confident in my critique here.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The article does not "claim to be about military"; it clearly differentiates between what OHQ is used for military and civilian missions, in separate sections. Some, but not all, EU military missions are referred to as operations. All EU missions, both civilian and military, have OHQs. In any case, the article Structure of the Common Security and Defence Policy is this article's 'parent'. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The military in the hatnote (oldid=917156975 & earlier) This article is about the list of operational headquarters (OHQ) that may be selected for the planning and conduct of individual European Union military missions ... perhaps gives me the impression about military; but perhaps it is just me who reads it that way.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: changing my !vote: I see improvement since the point at which I said draftify and sufficient to move my earlier !vote. I might have a couple of points and concerns with the current version but not relevant to AfD.  Article might have benefited from a Template:Under construction up to this point but that could have caused a WP:NPP to flick it into draft anyway so pays money takes choice.  Nom. originally tried to WP:PROD but couldn't as I have previously so had no choice but to go to AfD.  I'd also comment if an article is prod'ed it is often better to try to improve it rather that immediately de-prodding which leaves it vulnerable to AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Different content here than elsewhere, If you wanted to discuss a merge, then use the talk page and do it properly.   D r e a m Focus  18:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @: Can I ask who you mean by you? Is that me on the posting immediately above ... or is you referring to any reader of this page?  In either case I see this as a bold split without discussion which I believe has not been page curated especially at the point the AfD was raised.  But in all events the article has been somewhat developed since nomination and I am to a degree curious if the nom. feels the reasoning of the nomination still holds?  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @" DGG nominated the article with "unnecessary parial duplicate of Common Security and Defence Policy" so I speaking to him.  D r e a m Focus  19:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. This is not the place for a merger discussion.4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2019 (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.