Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was Withdrawn, I will as suggested renominate individual articles instead (not all at once of course, just one or two to start). Fram (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle[edit]

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

1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have a whole bunch of articles on the order of battle per country (and sometimes per branch) in 1989. 1989 was more or less the end of the Cold War, but despite this, this articles all seem to have the same problem: a lack of notability. For example the Portuguese order of battle in 1989 has not been a separate subject of reliable sources, and is as such a random choice (a random intersection of characteristics) for an article, and no more or less notable than the 1988 or 1990 order of battle in Portugal.

Also nominated for the same reason are:

Fram (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediate keep: I propose to snowball close. The end of the Cold War in 1989 was a key event of the 20th century and the East-West confrontation with their massive military buildups began to unravel rapidly once the Berlin Wall fell. By 1990 every military had begun to downsize and Soviet Forces were moving out of Eastern Europe. 1989 was the end of Cold War. One of the big five years in military history of that century: 1914, 1918, 1939, 1945, 1989. Therefore snowball close these destructive deletion requests. noclador (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Noclador: I would strongly suggest refactoring your comment above that discusses the contributor and not the content. Woody (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having a hard time trying to justify a blanket keep for every different country. I certainly don't feel there is a presumption to keep unless they can clearly be shown in secondary/tertiary reliable sources. I'm not necessarily seeing the justification for this kind of article. Woody (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1989 is one of the most important years of the Cold War, with 1989 marking the fall of the Berlin Wall (hence why Cold War historians use this number). It marks the peak of the armed forces of the Warsaw Pact and NATO, hence why this snapshot in time is so representative of their forces. I think it has sufficient notability to continue to exist. Garuda28 (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep These are notable articles based on the year and the composition of forces at that time. It is defining period in world history. An ambitious editor could create a list for such entries in relation to Warsaw Pact and NATO. I find the articles notable. Note: the problem with multiple items packaged as one, is we run the risk of deleting notable articles - so one reason I call for a procedural keep. I also sensed Noclador's frustration with the mass nomination. Lightburst (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Lightburst. I find their comments to the point and persuasive. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. 1989 was really the last year of the unprecedented military buildup of the 1980s, I for one have used these pages many times for use in wargames and writing as well as looking for historical sources within these pages. Also notable are the many force structure images showing individual divisional organizational charts, these are imperative for deducing a basic understanding of the late Cold War force structure. As for 1989 being no more notable than 1990 that is patently false. By the fall of the Berlin wall, many countries began to drastically reduce defense expenditures and shrink force postures. I truly hope the decision is made to keep all of these wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taco107 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC) — Taco107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Sourced orders of battle are notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many sources refer to 1989 as being the endpoint for Cold War era militaries (due to the effective end of the Cold War, and the commencement of negotiations for the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe which also led to rapid cutbacks), and use that as the benchmark for earlier and subsequent structures. As such, sourcing and notability should both be fine. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone, anyone, among all those keep votes could have provided a few sources to show that e.g. 1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle is a notable subject, meeting the WP:GNG. Anyone? Anything? "Should be fine", "Used it many times", "I find the articles notable", ... all very well, but in the end not a reason to keep any of these articles or all of them unless you have something to back up these claims. Fram (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note how e.g. Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 has been correctly tagged as being completely unsourced since 2016. If these pages are about suvjects which are so notable and important that they warrant knee-jerk keeps, perhaps some effort could be made to show that they actually are as notable as you claim them to be? Fram (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We should keep the Orbats, there is no reason to remove them - exactly the opposite, this is one of the rarer years for which near-complete lists of all country's Orbats exist. I could only wish for such extensive coverage of all European countries' Orbats for any other historical period. It is foolish to delete - I am strongly for keeping the Orbat articles. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is a reason to delete them, just like for most AfDs: a lack of notability for the individual order of battle of Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, ... in this year. It's one of the most basic dividing lines we have at enwiki; if there are no reliable, independent sources discussing the actual topic indepth, then we shouldn't have an article on it. That a lot of people find it useful or interesting is why Wikia was created. Fram (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there are lots of reliable independent sources discussing all these topics, in-depth. Your nomination of the Canadian article demonstrates how little you examined them: Noclador built that article from a detailed listing sourced from the recent Canadian defence review of the time.
      • To quote: "The article is based on the Canadian government's 1987 White Paper "A Defence Policy for Canada" (Link), which was published at the end of 1987. The White Paper served as basis for the overall structure and the equipment numbers. The article was then expanded with information from the Canadian Armed Forces Annual Historical Reports, which provided a complete listing of all units in existence in 1989."
      • Now, not all of them draw on official defence reviews, but just because, for example, the data has not been uploaded from the Bulgarian archives to make it accessible to English-speaking internet users does not mean that the article should be nominated for deletion. AfD is not cleanup. The sources exist - these are well functioning countries with great interest in the armed forces. They may not be in English, though.. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you start with "lots of reliable independent sources" (italics mine), and then give as example a prime example of a source which isn't independent at all, a white paper from the Canadian Government. So your rebuttal here is hardly convincing. Fram (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoops. Egg on my face. Should have read the phrase a little less angrily. No, whoops, no, not independent. What I mean to say is that these kind of incredibly detailed nationstate government listings are the most non-controversial kind of thing imaginable: they just about put you to sleep - that or the comparable Australian defence reviews which are of the same nature. Using this kind of non-independent sources are completely justified because they don't convey a particular political viewpoint - think about it - whether HQ 1 Canadian Brigade Group is in Vancouver or Calgary, and whether, thus, Headquarters Company, 1 Canadian Brigade Group, is in Vancouver or Calgary - does have any angle that can convey a political slant, diminishing reliability. On top of that, these kinds of unendingly boring lists are usually put out by governments within which we could attach citations to every particular unit. Would you rather have the Canadian article re-created by Noclador and I, but not with the single Canadian defence review source, but 950 footnotes from newspaper articles etc? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • No need for 950 footnotes and no need to remove such sources. They are perfectly reliable and useful once the notability of the subject has been established by independent sources. Not every fact, every detail, needs independent sourcing: using official sources for this is best practice (unless there is a reason to dispute or doubt them of course). Fram (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Those putative 950 newspaper, article, magazine, book-sourced, footnotes demonstrate the independent and reliable source coverage, thus, the subject is notable. If you want a single, specific, reliable, independent source that demonstrates the notability of this subject in this time period, see NATO Armies Today. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. 1987. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help), reprinted 1988 (copy available for perusal here). It includes this exact kind of listing of army units for most of these countries (though not air or WP). The official sources are the most accurate and we should base ourselves on them, but please, if you're happy with the putative other sources, such as Thomas & Volstad 1988, then just withdraw this time-wasting nomination. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, sources from prior to 1989 or from 1989 can not demonstrate that the 1989 OoB of these countries is particularly notable. What would be needed is sources from later showing how the 1989 Oobs were somehow special, as a group (so not a source about regiment X and another about Battalion Y, but a few about the importance of the 1989 Swiss OoB and so on. Fram (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Where does it say 'independent, reliable, and of later date' when it talks about the GNG? You're now going well beyond our policy guidelines. Better to stick to what it actually says - independent and reliable. Your claim has no validity.
                  • But, if I treat your request for a later date's source as merely a polite request for information, that particular book in question that I just provided the reference for was reprinted. It was first published in 1987, then reprinted in 1988.
                  • Then it was reprinted three more times, in 1995, 1998, and 1999.
                  • So (a), we have provided you official sources, which are the most authoritative source, since it's their armed forces; (b) independent and reliable sources, demonstrating unquestioned WP:NOTABILITY; and, also, as a favour to you, I have in good faith provided the extra information that you would have found had you looked at the reference - yes there was continuing interest in those independent and reliable sources for many years afterwards.
                  • This nomination is frivolous, as demonstrated above, and has *no* policy-based relevance. Kindly withdraw it forthwith. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Nothing frivolous about it. The only reason to withdraw it would be to restart it for individual articles. Back to your point: a source from 1987 or 1988 can hardly be used as evidence that 1989 is such a special, noteworthy year. That the source is reprinted afterwards doesn't change this one bit. We need an independent, reliable source, written in or preferably after 1989, showing that the 1989 OoB are especially noteworthy. Your source doesn't do that, you source literally can't do that.
                    • In fact, your sources actually disproves the whole "Oh, 1989 is so important for the OoB" argument. If a source called "NATO Armies Today" can be published in 1987, and reprinted identically in 1995, 1998, and 1999, then where is the watershed of 1989, which makes this whole series of articles necessary? For your claims to be true and these articles to be necessary, the book you present as damning evidence for your cause should have become completely outdated by 1990 and would never have been reprinted as "Todays armies" by the late 1990s. You can't have your cake (1989 is important because everything changes) and eat it (this 1987 book being reprinted unchanged in 1998 and 1999 proves it!). Fram (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to argue that 1989 (well, the late 1980s, 1987, 1988) wasn't specifically important. I am saying the demand for information about NATO armies in the late 1980s was important enough that the book was reprinted, by popular demand, three more times!! There was no total change by 1990 - the force structure changes hardly started. And this was *well before* the internet; gathering information was much more difficult; a comparable book in 1984-85, Isby & Kamps, fell so far behind completing and updating that an extra author had to be brought on board.
Never mind. I have answered with a specific example, your request for an independent and reliable source focused on the late 1980s. This unquestionably demonstrates WP:NOTABILITY of the subject (though not perhaps the *exact* year 1989; I have my doubts on that, as I've said elsewhere here). I have in good faith also provided, in response to your request, detail saying it was done at a later date, wording not required or included in the policy. Then you've twice changed the terms of your requests to try and claim this book does not meet your extra request for information. I'm done. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I asked for an independent and reliable source focused on 1989, not on "the late 1980s". You have not provided "detail saying it was done on a later date", you have given an exact reprint of an earlier source. That a book which is not about 1989, gets written before 1989 and reprinted unchanged long after 1989, is supposed to be proof of the notability of these 1989 articles, is simply not a convincing argument at all. Fram (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am ambivalent about this nomination but there is a distinct lack of policy-based argument above, with most comments above being shades of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:VALINFO. What makes an order of battle for 1989 more notable than, say, 1945 or 1956? My understanding is that many of these armies were already significantly below their Cold War peak by 1989 which could be argued to be the least justifiable year for the entire the Cold War. And why do all countries in Europe need to have orders of battle for the same date? I wrote Belgian Army order of battle (1914) on the basis that there were plenty of sources which addressed the specific nature of the Belgian Army at the outbreak of World War I but I do not see the same source basis here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the focus on 1989 is sometimes taken to extreme levels. Noclador has unwisely tried to push the source limitations re the Army National Guard for 1989 when there is a single available source, Isby & Kamps, clearly laying out 1985 which could be substituted.
      • Most Cold War armies were at their peak in 1989. The Reagan build up of military forces went on throughout the 1980s. I.e. the Italian Army was at its strength peak between 1 December 1988 (activation of the Motorized Brigade "Sassari") and 1 April 1991 (disbanding of the Armored Brigade "Mameli"), the US Army was at its post-Vietnam peak between 16 April 1986 (activation of the 6th Infantry Division) and 15 September 1990 (inactivation of 2nd Brigade, 2nd Armored Division, followed two weeks later by the inactivation of 1st Brigade, 9th Infantry Division), the German Army grew its strength all through the 1980s reaching full Heeresstruktur 4 in 1990 (Heeresstruktur 4: expanded 2x Jäger divisions to Panzergrenadier divisions, expanded 2x Panzergrenadier divisions to Panzer divisions, and added 12x armored Heimatschutzbrigaden). Heeresstruktur 5 began the drawdown of forces in 1990, which resulted in 27 brigades being disbanded by 20 March 1993. So 1989 IS the peak for Cold War forces on both sides of the Iron Curtain (the drawdown was even more massive and speedily in the Warsaw Pact nations). noclador (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh I think it's hard with a group nomination such as this, but I agree with Brigade Piron that there has been a lack of policy-based !voting. I took a look at Canada and found the following (broad coverage of the army in 1989): Maclean's article, NYTimes article, [1], Strike, Carol. 1989. “Profile of the Canadian Armed Forces” Canadian Social Trends. No. 15. Winter. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-008XPE. p. 17-22., [2], [3], and a 1989 conference. There's more coverage in the same vein, which suggests that 1989 is a very significant year in the Canadian army. Various books use 1989 as a cut-off point, such as Imagining Nuclear War in the British Army, 1945-1989 and US Army Rangers 1989–2015: Panama to Afghanistan, again indicating that it is a particularly notable year militarily. Does that justify having these extensive listings of structures? I don't know. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. While various books indeed use 1989 as a cut-off point, others use e.g. 1991, like "American Military Police in Europe, 1945-1991: Unit Histories"[4] or "A Military History of the Cold War, 1962–1991"[5]... Some of your results seem rather irrelevant as well, e.g. in this one [6] the words "order of battle" don't appear together with 1989. Actually, when looking for "1989" and "order of battle" in books[7], it becomes quite clear that the results mostly deal with the order of battle in actual active wars, and not in the more theoretical sense of the "order of battle" in a stand-off situation like here. Fram (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The term "order of battle" means very little. What we are dealing with is a listing of every unit (or restricted to every combat units only) in a nationstate army or navy or air force, with their locations, in their correct command structure hierarchy, and sometimes with their equipment. Sometimes sources call that 'order of battle'; sometimes they call it 'structure'; sometimes they simply call it a 'list'. Now here on WP we often standardize terminology across different countries, and people who work on the same things will often use the same terms for multiple countries. And we work with the limitations of our language - I am not sure what such a list compiled in Bulgarian for Bulgaria would be titled, but it might not be 'order of battle.' None of that semantics changes anything about the notability of the material. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Fram has a valid point and I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE is relevant. An order of battle by itself is unlikely to be notable, but can certainly form an important part of an article on a notable subject. I can quite understand the rationale of an article on the Swedish Army in the Cold War era (for example) which would address the size, composition, politics, equipment, and contemporary role of the Swedish Army in the Cold War era. The current order of battle in Structure of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1989 would be a valid part of such an article, but not an article in its own right. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram 1989 was the most defining year of the Cold War - you can read about it at Revolutions of 1989. In military terms, how momentous was this year: well, the Cold War era Polish People's Army was disbanded on 31 December 1989. That alone warrants an article about the Polish People's Army structure in 1989. Likewise the Nationale Volksarmee began to disband in January 1990 and was dissolved on 2 October 1990. The Pentagon announced on 29 January 1990 which divisions and brigades would disband in the post Cold war era. The Soviet Union began to return its Group of Soviet Forces in Germany on 1 June 1989, with three divisions gone by 12 October 1990. The Soviets began to leave Czechoslovakia in February 1990. East Germany took its forces out of the Warsaw Pact military structure in summer of 1990, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary followed. And so on and on. 1989 is per se a notable year for everything. It's like 1939 or 1945 a key year of the 20th century. Demanding we prove for every single European country the notability of the events related to military matters in 1989 is not needed. As said 1989 is a key year of history, especially for military history of Europe and political history of Europe. Notability is given that in 1989 a 44-year long war ended and the militaries of the nations involved in that war are per se notable. noclador (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A sourced snapshot of a particular situation (military forces in Europe and the US) at a particular time is one area where WP excels as an online encyclopedia, free of the limitations of print. See WP:5P1. I really don't understand why some editors want WP to be less informative. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 00:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But these articles are hardly informative. The defense is that 1989 was ultra-special as the end of the Cold War, and that things changed rapidly and dramatically: but then we would need, want, expect an article about changes, not one showing a static snapshot. These articles learn me absolutely nothing about the supposed importance, the impact of the end of the Cold War. Structure of the Canadian Armed Forces in 1989 is a very long article which teaches me completely nada about the Cold War, the events of 1989, the impact these had on the Canadian Army, ... It's just a glorified database. Fram (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fram Your comment above shows that you have a total lack of knowledge about these topics. These articles are highly informative and full of valuable knowledge, but one must be able to read them and understand them. The article you mention is not "just a glorified database", that's an ignorant and insulting comment. The article is a clear snapshot of how the Canadian military was organized at the end of the Cold War, and if you took some time to read it than this snapshot can show you how Canada planned to fight a war in Europe, how it planned to grow its army, where it expected to have to defend its own territory, where it expected to have to support NATO's maritime strategy, how it expected to contain Soviet nuclear subs, how it interacted with the US military, and and and. As you are unable to understand the information in these articles and therefore incapable to comprehend the value of these articles your AfD of all of them is an insult to the editors, who worked on them and use them repeatedly. If you want prose, there are 100s articles for that i.e. Military history of Canada, Canada in the Cold War, History of the Canadian Army, History of the Royal Canadian Navy, Canada in the Cold War, North American Aerospace Defense Command, Distant Early Warning Line, etc. etc. and so many more. Your above comment shows that you are not qualified to assess these articles and that you started this AfD out of ignorance and arrogance. I suggest you close this AfD immediately and stop wasting the time of qualified editors. noclador (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These AfDs should be split up. I agree mostly with Brigade Piron's comment. There should be a policy-based reason for keeping these articles, and so far few have really been provided that could apply to all of them. That said, the end of the Cold War year was an important time in history, and to delete all of these at once would be somewhat rash. These AfDs should be done individually, that way we can evaluate the sourcing for each one and see if the topic merits notability. For example, I can totally understand why a US order of battle from 1989 would matter, but I'm doubtful Portugal's is really of importance, seeing as its importance in the Cold War climaxed in the 1970s. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Indy beetle Portugal didn't "climaxed in the 1970s". Portugal's armed forces were part of NATO integrated command structure, providing one three-star maritime command (IBERLANT) and two two-star sea/land commands (ISCOMADEIRA and ISCOMAZORES), a key US Air Force REFORGER and Supply and maritime interdiction base (USAFORAZ) and providing 27 ships to SACLANT (and a reserve mechanized brigade to SACEUR). Besides only saying that the US order of battle matters ignores the Belgian, Dutch, British, Canadian and French divisions in Germany, whose presence there was THE defining aspect for the Cold War era for these countries. noclador (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • But do the sources prove that this was a "defining aspect" for Portugal's military? The current state of the article does not suggest so. If this were just an AfD for the Portuguese Order of Battle, I'd be inclined to delete. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm always on the fence on what to do in cases like this. When I AfD just one article from a series of similar or related ones, I get questions about "why this one and not that one" or "you can't delete this one, it is part of a series". When I AfD them all, I get "we can't evaluate them all at once" or "but they aren't the same" (which, to be fair, is probably more the case here than in some other mass-AfDs I have done). I'll give it a bit more time, but it may indeed be best if I then withdraw this AfD and restart one for one country or section only. Fram (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The order of battle of NATO countries in 1989 is a significant milestone.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1989_Portuguese_Armed_Forces_order_of_battle&oldid=1154955424"