Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of battle for the 2019–20 Western Libya offensive

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. Rename and trim required Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle for the 2019–20 Western Libya offensive[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)

This article by a blocked user is problematic and I am seeking consensus on what to do with it. My inclination is to delete because the whole concept of an ‘order of battle’ in this campaign seems inappropriate, and the creator has pulled together a wide variety of sources, reliable and unreliable, to create a topic which the sources themselves do not discuss. I therefore think it fails WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agreed that order of battle articles on minor, low-level battles confined to small areas (relatively speaking of course) are inappropriate and fail to meet the thresholds for articles. They're mostly mere copypastes from their main articles' infoboxes. Lightspecs (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but numerous other articles do this - see Order of battle for the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, Order of battle for Operation Olive Branch, Order of battle for the Battle of Mosul (2016–17) and Order of battle for the Raqqa campaign (2016–17). If they are not problematic, then why is this article? Under your claims, these articles would violate Wikipedia:SYNTH also. If the issue is the name of the article, change it to List of units involved in 2019–20 Western Libya offensive. The original creator of the article being blocked is irrelevant, I do not know reason for their block but no bad-faith edits had seemed to be made on the article of discussion, so if that is the cause for concern I think it is frivolous. The purpose of the article is seemingly to demonstrate the units involved in the campaign in Western Libya (which I might add is geographically larger than Afrin, the Raqqa countryside or Mosul to address User:Lightspecs point), as those articles do for individual offensives in Iraq and Syria. There is no false statements based on the conclusions of the articles, if you bother to read the sources, each article describes or refers to each group listed regarding their participation within the offensive (just as is done on the other pages I listed). If you have issue with inclusion of one group included, due to its source, then dispute that or delete it with sufficient reasoning. There are issues with some of the sources indeed, some reliable and others not, but it would be more suited to fix the article. If the article is too be deleted, its contents should at least be transferred to 2019–20 Western Libya offensive's infobox under the "Units involved" section and the List of armed groups in the Libyan Civil War article. --PanNostraticism (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I must confess I see no problem with this article. We have many other articles on orders of battle. What makes this one a particular problem? It's hardly unsourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two issues for me: firstly this is a patchwork of sources to assemble a picture that no individual source supports, so I think it's clearly SYNTH. I agree the same is probably largely true for the other 'order of battle' articles mentioned above by User:PanNostraticism. Secondly, on scale, for me the issue isn't as User:Lightspecs describes it. I think order of battle articles are fine for small, specific confrontations where there is an actual battle in one place and the participants involved are known and spoken about by most people reporting on it, e.g. First Battle of Bull Run. The article we're looking at here isn't really an 'order of battle' at all, it's a list of anyone who has got involved in a months-long conflict anywhere at any time. That could perhaps be addressed in the article title, but the SYNTH can't. Mccapra (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good solution would be deleting the article but moving the content into the main page. What are your thoughts on this? PanNostraticism (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Having an in-article list mentioning those forces which are attested to by RIS would be fine. Mccapra (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to "List of units involved in 2019–20 Western Libya offensive" - To move all these units into the infobox or the main body of the 2019–20 Western Libya offensive would just bloat it endlessly. In addition, I understand but do not agree with Mccapra's criticism. First of all, by renaming the article, one can avoid the baggage associated with "order of battle" without having to delete it. Secondly, how is it SYNTH? The information of different sources are not combined to create something new - a unit takes part in a operation or it does not, and this is mentioned in sources. I do not think that creating a mere list is already original research. Applodion (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that makes sense. Renaming and removing the unreliably sourced elements will resolve this I think. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a multitude of independent, persistent coverage in reliable sources attests to both the campaign's notability and the order of battle therein. Any renaming discussion should probably tale place on the talk page. Also "Keep per nom" :) ——Serial^# 12:11, 26 May 2020 (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.