Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Asian Union (2nd nomination)
- 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 redirect to South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. Redirect makes sense but little to merge. Tone 12:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
South Asian Union
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Speculative article that concatenates a few people using the term "South Asian Union". No evidence from sources on any agreement about what it might be,Total
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - ]
- Merge. An article on this topic was deleted in 2013 after the first AFD; I can't see the previous article or who created it. There is nothing inherently wrong about articles on proposed unions or splits/secessions of countries/provinces/states/counties or what have you. Perennial proposals like to split up the U.S. state of California should be, and are, covered, in good articles that served readers and "remember" stuff that applies again and again (see wp:BEFORE, or searching at all. I don't see how this is "synth" or why it should be dismissed as a "pipedream"; even if it is unlikely that does not mean the proposal should not be covered in Wikipedia. However, there does already exist a Wikipedia article on the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) referenced in the article and some or all of its sources, which would potentially evolve into becoming a more perfect union. It seems that adding mention of the "South Asian Union" term to the "History" section or elsewhere in the SAARC article, with mention of proposals for the SAARC to become more substantial along these lines, would be appropriate there. --Doncram (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2019 (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.