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 delete. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military Balance[edit]

Military Balance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Essay like effort devoid of references. Author has declared that he will fix references but there is no sign that any effort is being made in this direction despite prompting by several editors. The article is riddled with WP:OR and fails WP:NPOV and WP:V also. The article purports to be worldwide, but actually only covers the Japanese sphere. It could also be considered to be a fork as it is the same subject as Military capabilities SpinningSpark 13:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above. Buckshot06(prof) 15:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems like a rather biased essay rather than a wiki article, and entirely subjective. Skinny87 (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Article is virtually unreferenced and as is, is full of POV. While there may be a place in Wikipedia for a properly referenced, NPOV article on the East Asian military balance, this isn't it, and it would probably be easier to start from scratch - therefore Delete . Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• provisional keep. I just saw this debate posted somewhere asking for comment:I have no particular background about the subject or wiki coverage of the same generally. However, first, absence of refs is no reason to delete an article, nor is OR or POV, or incompleteness. These are all reasons to fix one, not delete it. Whether it ought to exist depends on whether the subject is a worthwhile one. It sounds as though it is. My reservation is whether a similar article already exists on the same subject, for their certainly ought to be one. 'Military Capabilities' is a list, not an article, and a short one at that.Sandpiper (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusingly, there is an article military capability as well, which is prose, not a list. POV and OR are reasons to delete if the article consists of nothing else. If all this is stripped out of the article all that is left is an (unreferenced) list which is even more incomplete than the existing list article. SpinningSpark 20:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is basically a POV essay with no references and some dubious claims. I agree that it would be possible to write a very good article on regional military balances (there's certainly lots of excellent references to help with this) but this article is so far from the necessary quality that it would require a complete re-write. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Torn on this one, current version is clearly unsuitable but the topic has potential. I'd always prefer to fix an article with potential rather than delete but this will need a ton of work. Justin talk 10:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Update The author has just deleted all the prose from the article, leaving just the tables. Don't know if it is in reaction to this debate. I would say that definitely now makes it the same topic as Military capabilities. SpinningSpark 11:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NEUTRAL Hi　sorry about your time gentlemen. I deleted my detail describe (Essay Part). So I think it improved about NPOV&OR. And I paste Japan Defense Ministry’s Source. And please read materials at bottom. This Article is not OR. DPRK’s Missiles can strike Tokyo[1]
• Regarding DPRK’s 3deliveable Nuke warheads and Big reactor please read this [2]
• BUT I changed my mind. I hope Japan join in NATO but if European people understand Military Balance at far east then they may reject it. So after I report the situation, if European person wants to delete this article as an OR, it’s their freedom. I should better shut my mouth for our benefit. BTW I really hope US export us F22--Jack332 (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This list already exists. JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the potential article is little more than a definition with no scope for further discussion.ALR (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.