Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination)

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 delete. For the significance of orders of battle in1989 not to be OR there needs to be sources provided to show this and, despute requesrs, sources have not been presented.Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Portuguese Armed Forces 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)

Basically per Fram's rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination) (closed as delete). There is no indication that the order of battle for this specific year in this specific country was encyclopedically notable. Certainly not more so than any other particular year. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989, which was also recently closed as delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely unreferenced and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS that satisfies WP:GNG. I do not believe that an order of battle serves any purposes without a battle and don't accept that 1989 is any more significant than any other year during to Cold War such as 1956, 1961, 1968 or 1983. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons outlined in the nom and as comparable to the other deleted articles. Fram (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of evidence of WP:GNG and lack of sources available to verify the information are the main issues here Spiderone 08:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must emphasize here that while the in-line citations for the Portuguese Army section do not specifically mention 1989, the sources for that section are (a) multiple, (b) independent - anyone who cares to look will see the websites are not official (take a look at the website authors at [1]!! they're military enthusiasts, "buffs") - and (c) reliable (Thomas & Volstad, NATO Armies Today, 1987). If the multiple, independent, and reliable threshold is met, it meets WP:GNG. Thus this nomination is perfectly valid for the naval and air force sections, but does not disprove the GNG for the army for the mid-1980s. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into the suitability of self-published sources produced by, basically, people in the military fandom, can you not see the issue with drilling down from "these sources mention the army in the mid-1980s" to "that proves the notability of the sub-topic of the army in 1989 specifically"? Notability is not inherited down the chain that way, especially when (as you specifically pointed out) the sources in question don't even mention the year in question. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing against the deletion of the air force and navy information, nor the removal of any references to the year 1989. What I am saying is that as of 1987 - Thomas and Volstad is *not* a SPS!! - there is a reliable, independent, source which verifies the information in the army section, published by a entirely reputable publisher, Osprey Publishing. I am arguing for the retention of the army listings information, sourced to Thomas & Volstad, backed up by other sources, possibly at something like List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987.

However, I am well aware of the WP:CFORK issue, and to avoid looking like I am trying to short-circuit an entirely legitimate AfD, I have to make the point at the AfD before any Army-focused text can be 'cordoned off' from the other Air Force & Navy text. If there is no further objection to Nigel Thomas & Ron Volstad (1987). NATO Armies Today, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, as backed up by other sources - military fandom is perfectly respectable!!, you would need to raise policy-based arguments against it because fandom, in its more respectable forms, produces great slabs of the corroborating data for many of our articles, Air Forces Monthly for a first source, off the top of my head - I will split off and create List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987, which should satisfy you gentlemen's GNG issues with the Air Force and Navy, while the properly referenced Army information can go its own way. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Gentlemen"? I'm a woman, last I checked. In any case, I'm really not making a GNG argument so much as an argument on ROUTINEness of this information - there is nothing that I have seen so far to indicate that 1989, or 1987, or any other particular individual year in any decade is any more notable (ie unusual, special, worthy of notice) for the army's units and formations than any other year. In other words, what is so unique about the Portuguese army in 1987 or 1989 that it requires its own individual article just to discuss the order of battle for that year, separately from every other year? From what I can tell - nothing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for making an incorrect guess at your sex.

The argument regarding 1987 - or any year in the 1980s - is that it indicates the general organizational structure of the Portuguese Army at the end of the time when it might have faced combat, the Third World War perhaps, against the Warsaw Pact. There was a substantial difference in the organization of the Army from (a) after World War II; (b) when the troops were sent to try to hold Angola, Mozambique, Portuguese Guinea, and East Timor, and, after the Carnation Revolution, (c) to the re-concentration on combat perhaps involving nuclear weapons trying to hold Italy against the Soviets/WP. I don't have access to the libraries in Portugal for the prior periods; what we do have now here are these WP:RELIABLE sources for this period. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you're conflating content about the changes brought by the period in general (which is what you seem to want the article to be) with a list of units from a particular year (what it is right now). The former is probably an interesting and sourceable piece of history - maybe for a long section at History of the Portuguese Army (which frankly a large part of Portuguese Army probably should be split off into). The latter is a routine list of the order of battle for one single year, with minute detail of individual regiments, boats, squadrons etc etc, but with very little prose that tells the reader what the actual context of the list is. The first is encyclopedic content, the second is just...contextless stats. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In military terms, both, rather than one or the other, matter. To take the Independent Mixed Brigade, for example. It was unique in the Portuguese Army for being based on battalions, rather than regiments; that history stemmed from its shinkage from the Division "Nun´Álvares"; each of its units has its own history, reasons for being in the places they were, with the equipment they had. The placing of such-and-such a unit at such-and-such a place gives one an idea about the reaction time and likelihood of success if called upon for any specific mission - a unit in Viseu or Evora could move faster to Italy than a unit in Faro, for example. The lineage and history of the regiment gives an idea about its level of morale, especially if whether it's conscript or professional is noted. Myself and people who collect and collate such data believe that this kind of thing matters at a detailed level, and if that material is backed by independent, reliable sources, then that meets the GNG. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped that after the previous two discussions, we didn't need to have the same arguments yet again. No, this doesn't meet the WP:GNG by a mile, since you have no reliable, independent sources about the actual subject of the article, the 1989 order of battle of the Portuguese army. None, nada, not a single one. You have one reliable sources (about two pages?) for 1987, then you have an enthusiasts website where the page used as a source doesn't even mention 1989; then there is a page of badges, and a primary source. Even if this article was about the 1987 order of battle, it wouldn't meet the GNG, which requires multiple sources. For 1989 though, you have so far nothing at all. The remainder of your explanations has no bearing on the actual article or the sources, but are WP:OR claims. Fram (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1987 and the 1980s, in general, for army units, I have provided multiple, independent, reliable sources, as you have seen above, I am not trying to keep 1989. Your somewhat pointed comments about the sources I have provided aside, they meet the GNG, in conjunction with Thomas & Volstad. They prove the existence of the unit where they cited. If you have problem with those specific sources, take then to WP:RSN. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get the difference between WP:V and WP:GNG? Really? Sources which aren't independent can be perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial stuff and have no place at all at WP:RSN. But they are worthless for meeting the WP:GNG. It is very clear in the first line you read when you follow that shortcut: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sources which are not independent of the subject don't count towards the GNG. Sources which don't provide significant cocverage (like that page of badges) don't count towards the GNG either. Sources which are not about 1989, like the "operacional" page, also don't provide significant coverage of the actual subject of the article, as they cover, well, something else, not the 1989 order of battle (nor for that matter a 1987 order of battle). These commente aren't "pointed", they are very much "to the point", the essence of what is under discussion here, and the essence of what is expected as sourcing. I had hoped that the two previous discussions, and the "delete" results, would have given you an indication of this, but apparently you just continue with the same mistakes again and again. Fram (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep Given all the comments, I propose keep and try to clean up. If not possible to find reliable sources back to 1989, delete it. BlueD954 (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This and similar articles provide a comprehensive picture of the NATO-Warsaw Pact military balance in the final years of the Cold War. Similar "snapshots" of other significant years of the Cold War do not exist in a free encyclopedia form, though some wargaming databases purport to provide one. WP:NOTPAPER, WP:5P1. From what I observed, the Austrian and Swiss orders of battle (yes, the US and NATO use the term for force structure whether or not a country is at war) were deleted for poor referencing, and those countries were neutral. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically "it's useful" then, not "it's notable", which is what is being discussed. Just like with the two that were deleted, there are no reliable, independent sources which discuss the 1989 structure specifically. Fram (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets WP:CLN and WP:AOAL for keeping a list. 1989 is a major milestone year in the Cold War. // Timothy :: talk 13:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment firstly its not a List. You need to explain why 1989 was a "milestone year in the Cold War" any more than multiple other years were. If it was so important where are the multiple RS providing SIGCOV about the Portuguese armed forces in 1989? Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of these are arguments for or against deletion of a list, they are arguments why a list may be a better format than a category, a regular text article... No one has argued that this should be deleted because it is a list or that it should be turned into a category or ..., so your keep is basically a strawman argument. Fram (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think this is a list, and in the same way an outline is a list, showing hierarchy. 1989 is significant because it was the year the Eastern bloc dissolved Revolutions of 1989. It is a significant year in Cold War history. Being unsourced by itself is not a reason for deleting a list, especially one that could function as part of WP:CLN. Given the level of activity of the military history editors, this could become an excellent building block - "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive." // Timothy :: talk 06:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Being unsourced by itself is not a reason for deleting a list" is yet another strawman. The deletion nomination is not for being unsourced, but for lacking notability. A list topic still needs to be a notable topic, even though not every entry in the list needs to be individually notable. No one disputes that 1989 is an important year, but that doesn't automatically make the order or battle of different armies in that year notable. The fact that no reliable sources have considered this an important enough topic to spend some significant attention on it, makes that this list is not a suitable subject. Fram (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: via WP:CLN and WP:AOAL, sources exist. Year is relevant. Detailed list need an immense amount of work, so deletion is the wrong course of action. Help to expand and source is the way to go as Timothy also noted. noclador (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Detailed list need an immense amount of work, so deletion is the wrong course of action. " That makes no sense at all. We don't decide to keep or delete an article based on the amount of work that has crept into it. We decide to keep or delete based on the notability of the subject (the exact subject, not one aspect only like the year). As indicated above, neither CLN nor AOAL are arguments to keep or delete a list where the subject simply isn't notable. Oh, and presenting CLN and AOAL as two arguments, when one is a paragraph of the other, is a bit bizarre. Anyway, AOAL could be an argument if the deletion was based on "better as a category" or "better as a navigation template", neither of which are the case here. Which leaves you with "sources exist": then please show them? Reliable, independent sources with significant attention for the actual subject, the structure of the Portuguese Army in 1989. Provide them and it's a keep; don't, and it's a delete. It's not more complicated than this. Fram (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fram, don't you have other things to do? As in every deletion discussion you find fault with and belittle every editor not agreeing with your plan to delete a whole category of articles. You expect everyone not arguing for delete to argue his opinion with you, which is neither helpful, nor justified, especially as earlier deletion discussion have shown that you're impervious to anything but your viewpoint. I have better things to do. noclador (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean those "earlier deletion discussion"s which ended in delete, despite the keeps you and others posted there as well, but sadly there as well without a good reason? I don't find fault with editors, I find fault with the arguments they present when these aren't relevant or correct (like your "sources exist"). No one is actually stopping you from doing those "better things" you have to do; replying here to attack me, without actually adressing any of the arguments, will not increase the chances of this article getting kept. Fram (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on my review, this isn't a notable enough subject for an article. None of the sourcing in the article specifically talks about 1989, and this appears to fail WP:GNG and possibly WP:OR as well. Note I found out about this article from DRV and took a look at it from a neutral point of view, and will not be watching this discussion, and if on topic sources are found, a request to the closer to downweight my vote properly. SportingFlyer T·C 20:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PMC, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and WP:MILL. Of course 1989 is a significant year in the history of the Cold War; that is not in dispute. However, notability is not inherited: not everything that happened in 1989, even if directly related to the Cold War, is notable as a result. We aren't seeing publishers single out 1989 as a particularly notable year to release orders of battle; unfortunately a passing mention in a almanac-type publication and a self-published website, even one by a few military buffs, are not enough evidence that this particular armed forces in this particular year deserves an article. CThomas³ (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into another article about Portuguese military history. It is true that "sources exist", and we could write an article about the structure of the Portuguese military in 1989, or 1990, or any other year in modern history, but that doesn't mean we should. Wikipedia is not simply a collection of verifiable information, it's an encyclopedia, and we write about encyclopedic topics. Articles like this aren't encyclopedic. The topic of Portuguese military history is definitely encyclopedic, as is Portuguese military history during the Cold War, and I suggest writing about one of those topics instead. Hut 8.5 19:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NNC: "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists" (updating my !vote above regarding a new reason, no intention to double vote). This is a list of components of a notable organisation. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The topic still has to be notable even if individual content doesn't, and no one yet has demonstrated that the Portuguese army's order of battle in 1989 was, in fact, notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have demonstrated that in regard to 1987, referring to Thomas & Volstad, and laid out an entire argument, above, for splitting the Army section, again, for 1987. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Fram demolished that argument by pointing out that none of the sources mentioned actually have substantial coverage which indicates the notability of the Portuguese army's order of battle in 1989, which is the actual topic of the article under discussion, not the army in 1987, not 1989 in the Cold War in general, and not any other hypothetical article on any other slightly-related topic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat myself again, I thought I had to make the point at the AfD before any Army-focused text can be 'cordoned off' from the other Air Force & Navy text. I am now doing so again, and nobody has raised any valid issues against it. If nobody has any issues with the 1987 Army text, I will happily take that text and separate it. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please no! Like I said above, "Even if this article was about the 1987 order of battle, it wouldn't meet the GNG, which requires multiple sources." You have one 2-page source about the 1987 structure, which, while better than the zero you have for 1989, still isn't sufficient. Creating new articles to avoid this deletion is not helpful at all, and will only lead to new AfDs for the same material. Fram (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat unready to react with alacrity to any pleas you might make. You're trying to delete helpful, sourced, information. I have met the requirements, as exhaustively discussed here. If this AfD is closed as delete, you are of course at liberty to try and mount new AfDs, as is your right for any page. But the requirements have been met. It backs up the notability of the army in detail in 1987. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your "If nobody has any issues with the 1987 Army text, I will happily take that text and separate it. " was just empty talk? Okay, I'll start the AfD then. Fram (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987. Fram (talk) 11:22, 13 November 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.