Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal New Zealand Navy Future Plans


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus to delete and alternative options do not require admin tools and can be decided by editorial consensus on the article talk page Spartaz Humbug! 05:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Royal New Zealand Navy Future Plans

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I just don't see how an article on the future plans of a navy can be encyclopedic. They change over time, are subject to a degree of secrecy as well as ever-changing political viewpoints, and it is particularly difficult to keep such an article neutral. Project Protector as such could have its own article. dramatic (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete per nom. Can't say much else about the deletion really. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As what were future plans have essentially been completed there seems no reason to keep this article. Any relevant information can be moved to Royal New Zealand Navy. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - There are similar articles Future of the Royal Navy, Future of the Royal Air Force , although the French French_Navy and US Navy doesn't seem to have anything. Specific projects (like new ship classes) usually have articles - SimonLyall (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Buckshot06 (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Retitle and Reorganise to Project Protector - agree with nom. The problem is that it's very hard to write articles about non-specific subjects, and hard to update them. The RNZN is not likely to be doing any major more-than-one-class procurement projects for some time, except the ANZAC class modernisation which can be handled at the class page. Any new classes will eventually have their own pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Retitle and Reorganise per Buckshot. The changes to the RNZN the article describes were highly notable and represented a major change in the RNZN's force structure. However, its now complete and there aren't any further changes likely for some years (though the two Anzac class frigates are to receive significant upgrades in the next few years). In regards to the nomination, I don't agree that there's a notable "degree of secrecy" in the force structure development plans in NZ or most other democracies - these were announced years in advance and have been reported on publicly. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Retitle and Reorganise as above. Much of the article is about Project Protector, which won't radically change quickly, and is more encyclopaedic. Adabow  ( talk )  04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Retitle and Reorganize since Yanks like me spell the word differently. For my part, I just don't see why an article on the future plans of a navy can not be encyclopedic.  Mandsford 17:10, 13 June 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.