Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JACKSNNZ

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 merge‎ to Biological Weapons Convention. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JACKSNNZ

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

JACKSNNZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced stub (well, just a general ref, no footnotes). Uncler how this meets WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. My BEFORE shows some mentions in passing here or there, but noting in-depth. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 13:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 13:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it was such a common acronym, it gets zero google news hits. Fails GNG by a long mile. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Biological Weapons Convention, which seems to be the only area where this grouping has any relevance. There is sigcov in reliable sources [1][2][3], but since this grouping is apparently only relevant at the conferences on this particular convention I don't see the need for a standalone article. @LibStar and @Piotrus at Hanyang, would you be okay with a merge? Toadspike [Talk] 11:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge to BWC. A JSTOR search turned up reliable sources including Becker (2007) [4], Meier (2006) [5], Becker (2008) [6], which confirm that JACKSNNZ is an informal coordination group focused narrowly on BWC-related issues. This is best merged with the main BWC article to prevent fragmentation (WP:CFORK). HerBauhaus (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Biological Weapons Convention there is coverage in Books and academic articles to lend some support of the subject that its not made up but not enough to warrant its own article. --hroest 18:49, 11 June 2025 (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.