Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papuan unification


 * 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 merge to Papua conflict. Or elsewhere as may be deemed appropriate.  Sandstein  21:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Papuan unification

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sufficient enough to be a standalone article. Only one source cited in the article, and that source does not even discuss anything about unification. After searching on Google Books, I'm struggling to find reference for this topic. The goal of Free Papua Movement is a sovereignty over the Republic of West Papua, not a union with Papua New Guinea. Even if the union proposal existed, it should be just mentioned on Papua conflict, since there isn't enough material to pass WP:N for a standalone article. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with Free Papua Movement, I added some sources that show this is a thing that exists, but there is still not enough for an independent article, so a merge seems like the best option. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The source added does show more notability to the topic. I would disagree with a merge with Free Papua Movement or Papua conflict because, as noted above, this is not the goal of this organisation nor a reason of the conflict. Mottezen (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you expand the article? At least into a C-Class? Because if you can't, there's no reason to keep this article. Also, a mention from one Australian news website does not make it notable. You have to get sources specifically discuss this "unification" topic, which are unavailable so far. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge - I believe that this should be merged with 'Papua conflict', though I can see other pages possibly being brought up for consideration. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge as appropriate if someone's willing to carry it out. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 17 April 2020 (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.