Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines and weapons of mass destruction


 * 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. Close to no consensus. (non-admin closure)  J 947  23:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Philippines and weapons of mass destruction

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not contain any information about actual WMD planning and R&D in the Philippines. Instead the article states that the United States military were rumoured to hide nuclear warheads in the country during the Cold War era. That isn't justification for creating this article. There is also mention about the Bataan nuclear power plant, and that the Philippines 'nuclear program' started in 1958 - Both are linked to peaceful uses of nuclear technology and has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It also contains a rumour which suggests the New People's Army previously had biological weapons, and with no evidence presented.

This should be deleted. Philippines does not have a history of WMD development whatsoever. Agila81 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with United States and weapons of mass destruction - If the only relevant information is how the United States stored WMDs there to defend against the USSR, there's no reason we shouldn't transcribe the information to the relevant US-WMD article. The Philippines has never had a WMD program and the information about atomic energy plants is irrelevant as they are not WMDs. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete after adding a reference to the cited State Department memo to United States and weapons of mass destruction. I don't even think a merge with history is needed.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  20:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a page on an non existing topic & POV title to boot. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a POV title. There's a whole series of "xxxx and weapons of mass destruction" articles that can be found in Category:Weapons of mass destruction by country. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not grounds to keep an article, consistency is a good enough reason to follow an implicit naming convention. There is the matter of the US storage of nuclear weapons in the Philippines. Arguably this should be mentioned in Nuclear weapons and the United States (not United States and weapons of mass destruction) but it isn't, and nor is there mention in that article (or its WMD parent) of US storage of nuclear weapons in other countries. I did find them mentioned in the WMD articles on Germany and South Korea; curiously, three of the most important storage countries are conspicuously missing WMD articles. Secondly, This is not a non-existent topic. Countries do not need to have WMD programs to have policies on WMDs! Luxembourg has one! The Philippines has signed separate treaties on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. There is a story behind each of these, there are books on the subject, and I am certain that materiel exists to write an article, so the topic passes WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Per explanations by, then mention in the United States and weapons of mass destruction but still delete as the country does not possess / has not possessed any WMD of its own. For example, there's no Finland and weapons of mass destruction article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But we do have Australia and weapons of mass destruction and Sweden and weapons of mass destruction etc. Is Sweden close enough to Finland? The articles are not just about WMDs that the countries have (if any) but their policies towards them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The linked article on Sweden states: "During the late 1940s and 1950s, Sweden had programs for both nuclear and chemical weapons. During the first decades of the Cold War, a nuclear weapons program was active." That was not the case for the Philippines. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WMD proliferation has more dimensions than counting wmds. Non Proliferation policy making has evolved over time to address state actors and non-state actors such as terrorist groups. You may therefore having WMD programs being developed by rogue groups within a country with no wmds. See United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1540 The country report of Philippines is here:. Afernand74 (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Hawkeye7. Aside from the storage of US nuclear weapons in the Philippines, the article can cover other aspects of Filipino diplomatic actions in relation to WMDs (eg, their position in various international negotiations and the country's status in ratifying international agreements). Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 17:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. We know that the Philippines hasn't developed any such weapons (or at least, that's what THEY want you to think), but this article can still be a useful discussion of the government's attitude to such weapons; participation in anti-proliferation activites, relevant treaties, storage of weapons on Philippine soil, and allegations of use by rebel groups.  There's plenty to talk about in such an article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:20, 24 March 2017 (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.