Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 British Army order of battle

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. Even if not counting the creator vote, there seems to be a clear consensus since the relist. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2007 British Army order of battle[edit]

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

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

There were no major UK Defence Reviews around 2007 to warrant a list of Orders of Battle for the British Army. This article lacks significance and is poorly sourced. Sammartinlai (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sammartinlai (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above. Dormskirk (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nominator. Gavbadger (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were several major infantry regiment amalgamations in 2006 and 2007 (SCOTS, LANCS and RIFLES at least) resulting from the 2003 Defence White Paper outcomes and consequent changes. I am trying to explore with the article creator whether 2007 (or 2008) was a steady state in the British Army that might justify a 2007 (or 2008) ORBAT such as this one. The principal source appears to be archived versions of the official British Army website, which, whilst not an academic source, may be acceptable once it has been examined more closely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this? Please sign your comment/vote. Which 23003 Defence White Paper are you talking about? How does that justify a Stuture four years later? Archives of a British Army website do not justify the need for an orbat for 2007. Archives just show the units were present. Sammartinlai (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the 2003 Defence White Paper entitled Delivering Security in a Changing World [1], and the force reductions contained within. Some of this was modified by later MoD guidance in 2004 [2], and various changes were made to the details of the original plans over the years following the White Paper's release [3]. These changes were the basis for the creation/amalgamations of several regiments like LANCS, SCOTS and RIFLES, which occurred in 2006 and 2007. So, 2007 (or 2008) seems a logical steady state following the reductions/amalgamations, unless you are aware of major changes in 2008–2010. And you can tone your comments down. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R LANCs was created in 2005 so that's not counted. The Rifles were created in 2007, ok. SCOTS were created in 2006. So only Rifles count and that is not much for a structure for 2007, based on defence reviews in 2003 and 2004. And then you claim, or rather I first proposed for merger [4], 2008 is also steady state, ie, List of British Army Regiments (2008). These all do not show why 2007 is a steady state. Besides, this [[5]] AfD was deleted. So why should this 2007 be kept? Sammartinlai (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is self-evident. If all the changes from the 2003 White Paper were completed by February 2007 (with the creation of RIFLES), then the British Army in March 2007 (or 2008, I'm open to moving it there because it is less ambiguous than 2007 due to RIFLES being created in early 2007) is a steady state following all of the changes originally mooted in 2003. It shows the state of the British Army once the White Paper had been fully implemented (with various modifications here and there), and therefore is encyclopaedically useful as a snapshot showing the full outcome of the 2003 White Paper. Unless you have contrary information that shows major changes to the British Army between the creation of RIFLES and the 2010 Review, I see no reason whatsoever why this article should not be kept. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are picking at straws. Unless you tell me a huge majority of the units were changed/merged/created in 2007 and not earlier or later (I am ignoring 2008 since this isn't in the first reason to delete), then it is significant. As I've previously pointed, especially on J-Man-11's talk page, there was no detailed army document regarding these changes. SDSR 2010 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62482/strategic-defence-security-review.pdf), it was announced just two/2 years later (not four, not three as your case is), that there would be a Army 2020 plan (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120817015012/http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Army2020_brochure.pdf) and then it came up the next year (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131002123834/http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Army2020_Report.pdf). These plans covere the majority of units. Your argument covers only a couple of units stretched over longer periods of time, with no clear army plan or links (Army 2020 changes can be found [6] here. As I said, only the Rifles changed in 2007 and a previous article covering changes was deleted in a AfD, [7]]. No, you are just desperately picking at straws. Sammartinlai (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate being lectured at, so pull your head in. My views are not "desperate", they are completely logical. I've made my views clear and you are not going to change them by bludgeoning me with posts. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An additional, perhaps principal source for this article has been identified through ongoing communication with the article creator. The British Army Guide 2008-2009 (2008) by Charles Heyman and published by Pen & Sword. It specifically identifies ORBAT states of play for 2007, and is available in preview on Google Books here. Combined with the weaker but still reliable archived official British Army webpages, this provides sufficient reliable sources to support the existence of this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one desperately arguing, am not lecturing, argument still stands. Curious you think one source is a saviour of it all. Sammartinlai (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I argue again for deletion, especially since I argue it is so similar to British Army Land_Forces, 2007-2015 where the result was delete. I also stand my previous arguments as per above. Using a defence review three/four years earlier and one book does not justify the need for a structure for 2007, especially since only one cited unit was changed in that year. Sammartinlai (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've already made your point a number of times. This is becoming repetitious, and is probably discouraging to other editors who may look in on it. So can you just leave it so others can comment. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy, since you yourself are. So I'll leave it. If you reply, you are really breaking your own law. Sammartinlai (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Peacemaker67. Not easy to get through this thread with all repeatitve, argumentative (and insulting) comments by the nom. But Peacemaker67 makes some very good points. If I may ask/confirm; PM67, you are open to a change of year in the title? (just curious, it will not affect my !vote either way) Thanks - wolf 07:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for 2008 just because the RIFLES creation was in 2007, so 2007 could be considered a bit ambiguous (ie at what point of 2007). The principal source I identified via discussions with the creator was published in 2008 so that supports a move to 2008. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peacemaker67’s reasons. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per Peacemaker Lyndaship (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a Keep vote should be permitted for the page creator, J-Man11 has just been blocked for 4 weeks. He has made several comments in defence of the article on his talk page, that should also be considered for the supporting rationale for this !vote. As there is no policy against it, this vote by proxy should be recognized. Peacemaker67... thoughts? As the blocking adoin, familiar with the user's history and talk page, I'll leave this to you. If you believe this isn't valid, I'll remove or strike. Thanks - wolf 07:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given J-Man11 is clearly a struggling newbie and may not understand how this all works, I think that is a reasonable assumption, but I'll leave the closer to decide whether to give it any weight or not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons Peacemaker67 has articulated and sourced very well -- Reasons to delete seem wholly opinionated and academic at best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as substantial coverage in reliable sources have been identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and there is no convincing reason for deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage in reliable sources; generally applies to most year-specific orders of battle, though sometimes the sources don't turn up here very fast. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2018 (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.