Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom and the United Nations


 * 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. JForget 01:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom and the United Nations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This near-unreferenced page contains only general information about the history and structure of the UN, nothing to flesh out an article at all. The first section contains two sentences about the UK being a founding UN member (already covered, much better-ly, in History of the United Nations); the second section simply notes the fact that Britain has a veto power (again, covered in greater depth and more encyclopedically in United Nations Security Council veto power etc.) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  directorate  ─╢ 22:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually a worthwhile topic and could cover the UK's support and sometimes disagreements with the UN. The same kind of articles could be written about other major nations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I can only hope that, as a matter of British pride, somebody rescues this article that seems to have been started and never finished. At current, it implies that the United Kingdom has not really done anything of importance within the U.N. since 1956.  In that regard, it's rather misleading, so I wouldn't mind terribly if it were to be deleted.  On the other hand, like Kitfoxxe, I think it was a good idea for a topic (for U.N. purposes, I'd consider the most important nations to be the five permanent members of the Security Council), and I have my doubts that it would be recreated any time soon.  Mandsford 02:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for expansion. I'm sure there is plenty to say. --Pnm (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are any of you planning to rewrite it, then? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  person of reasonable firmness  ─╢ 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having looked at India and the United Nations, that's convinced me there is more than enough material out there for a stand-alone article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are any of you planning to rewrite it, then? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  prorogation  ─╢ 10:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but it's normal to keep a stub if it's clear a full article could be created from it. The only other alternative would be to merge all country-UN relation pages into one page and split off full articles as and when individuals get too large for an individual entry, but that would be a complicated merger discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to TreasuryTag's question, no, I myself am not planning to rewrite the article, hence I did not vote to keep. In my experience, AfD actually is for cleanup when something requires the work of many hands.  Nobody rushes to rescue a damsel who has no clue that she is in distress.  There need not be a dragon; sometimes the only rescue needed is to prevent the damsel and her escort from further making total fools of themselves in public.  I'm an American, and although I could do an excellent job in finding sources to demonstrate that the UK has indeed done things of note in the last 64 years of world history, I would yield to a Briton who wanted to accomplish the same task and who could write with a perspective that I do not have.  For me, it would not be an honor, much less an honour, but rather an act of mercy.  I suspect that the article would probably survive the first nomination for deletion even if not cleaned up; on the other hand, if there is still no interest taken in it by the time of the second nomination, I think that people would be happy to remove this article. Mandsford 13:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. If the article seems unfinished then it is our editing policy to leave it in  article space for readers to find and improve. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic seems to be fairly important. As another American I can assure you that "The United States and the United Nations" is a topic of major importance for both sides. I don't know if it has an article here but it should have.  I wouldn't have a problem with 200 (or so) articles on each nation's relationship to the UN.  Deleting this one would be a step back, not a step forward. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's an excellent source from the United Nations to refer to, concerning all the vetoes that had been cast by the five Security Council members during the first 58 years of the U.N.'s existence. Unfortunately, it's sideways  but it's a starting point for anyone who wants to learn specific matters where the U.K. has intervened.  Mandsford 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - with its veto power, UK is one of the most important member states of the UN. I'd have a problem, contra Steve Dufour, with every such relationship having its own article, but certainly this is one of perhaps two dozen that really must be in a complete online encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click Google news and it says Results 1 - 10 of about 41,000 for "United Kingdom and the United Nations".  LOL!  A notable relationship I'd say.   D r e a m Focus  06:18, 5 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.