Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan-Oceania relations

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: useful stub with potential for expansion, precedent of many comparable bilateral articles out there, and finally we need to not send verifiable information about Oceania currently not being at war with either Eastasia or Eurasia down the memory hole. --- Deville (Talk) 03:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan-Oceania relations

I fully support the notion that articles on bilateral relations between every set of two countries should exist, but Oceania is not a nation and this content would be better placed in other Foreign relations of Japan articles. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Its better to have oceania in that section instead of listing all pacific island nations. like Samoa, Tonga etc. --Ageo020 00:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Useful stub with potential for expansion. The importance of this issue in relation to whaling is a topic worthy of treatment in an article for example. Capitalistroadster 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Capitalistroadster 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Foreign relations of Japan. There's not enough content here to warrant a separate article yet. --Metropolitan90 02:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ageo020 and Capitalistroadster.-gadfium 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ATTY 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• If Capitalistroadster can see scope for a decent article, I won't vote to delete this. I will express concern about the ambiguity of the term "Oceania", which in this article appears to be being used in a slightly unusual way -- for example, "Oceania" nearly always includes Australia in my experience, but this article seems to describe Australia as not even in the same region? This needs clarifying, and if an alternative title can be found ("Relations of Japan with Pacific island nations"?) then that might be preferable.
  Besides, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. — Haeleth Talk 10:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge if there's anything valuable. Btw, from the title I assumed it is something about 1984. Pavel Vozenilek 19:24, 3 September 2006 (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.