Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack on HMS Invincible

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.
In this AfD, the community considers how Wikipedia should cover an attack on the HMS Invincible, a British light aircraft carrier, by Argentina that took place during the Falklands War. Nobody believes that we shouldn't cover the attack. At issue here is whether to cover it in a separate article or instead in the main article on HMS Invincible.
To a superficial glance this looks like a "no consensus", and it would be easy to make a no consensus close. But if you follow the arguments, in fact a consensus emerges. There are a number of "delete" !votes which express, as their reasoning, that there's insufficient content or sources to justify a separate article, and therefore this content should be covered in the main article. Per WP:ATD these !votes should be read as "redirect" or "merge". There are a number of "keep" !votes which express that the article changed dramatically during the course of the debate (and they're undoubtedly correct on this). But the clear topic of discussion here is the principle of how to cover this content, not the detail of what the revised article contains.
The discussion also contains accusations of bad faith behaviour and puffery against the Article Rescue Squadron. These belong at one of the venues that deal with conduct rather than content, and it is not appropriate for a closer to make a finding about them at AfD.
By re-weighting a lot of the !votes in this light, the outcome I get to is a rough consensus for a redirect with selective merge.—S Marshall T/C 13:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on HMS Invincible[edit]

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

Attack on HMS Invincible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sufficiently notable to have its own page, article is an orphan and is a clear content fork from HMS Invincible (R05). I also have doubts about the neutrality of the article since it speaks of a "British" version and an "Argentine" version. I am aware that rather bizarrely there are elaborate conspiracy theories in Argentina that the British somehow covered up the sinking of an aircraft carrier and built a replacement in only 5 weeks but that is WP:FRINGE and to start an article dwelling on this is WP:UNDUE. Suggest delete as I see nothing worthy of merging into the HMS Invincible article. WCMemail 09:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 19/4/2020 A lot of effort seems to have been applied to try and save this article. Of the sources added, 1 is blacklisted and it was edit warred back into the article after it was removed, many are WP:SPS and are unsuitable for Wikipedia. I have reached out to the person responsible, providing a link to where it was blacklisted [1] and it's still there. I had a long email instead suggesting it was a "good source" (its a blog). Of the further reading, a lot is actually unrelated to the topic. An entirely superfluous "Overview" section has been added that adds nothing. A lot of the text added is simply copied from other articles. Seriously this isn't improving the article, if anything it makes the case for deletion more compelling. WCMemail 07:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCMemail 09:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCMemail 09:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would need better quality sources to warrant an article in its own right, which I doubt it will get. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak Keep I suspect that sources are sufficient to support a viable article on this topic, but it would be better off with another title. While it's widely established that the carrier wasn't hit and probably wasn't targeted, lots of works on the war discuss the topic to establish this. The article needs a ton of work though. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to full keep in light of improvements. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary fork of HMS Invincible (R05) where its already adequately covered. Mztourist (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main article on the Falklands War, or just delete if this info is already there. I can understand having a separate article on a battle in a war, or maybe on the actual sinking of a ship if it was notable (I think we have one on the sinking of an Argentine sub and of a major British ship in that war?), but seriously, an Exocet missile running out of fuel and failing to sink a carrier is not notable. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Covered well enough in the carrier's article. Intothatdarkness 19:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into HMS Invincible (R05), where the subject is covered in a well referenced paragraph; that is, if there is anything worth having in this to merge. If not, just redirect. The fork under discussion is much less well referenced. The Argentines thought they had sunk an aircraft carrier, but the British, after the war explained that what they had sunk was a large supply ship Atlantic Conveyor. This meant that the British could not set up the Prisoner of War camp, which they had shipped out in readiness, because it was in that ship. Instead PoWs had to be held on board ship. (edit conflict with next two items). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/Draftify - Per Nick-D's comments. I do think it's worth having the discussion, which is why I removed the Prod. Yes, it needs a lot of work and better sources, but there are details of the conspiracy theory that should be addressed, and it would be undue weight in the main article. That said, it's beyond my ability to improve the article, so unless someone were willing to work on the article, even as a draft, it might be better to delete it. BilCat (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete/Draftify - If it can be expanded, then it would be fine, but it's unclear if this topic can exist on its own. Maybe some incubation time would help clarify things. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I have no problem with either delete or merge, but with regards to merge, why does it make more sense to merge into the HMS Invincible article, rather than the article on the Falklands War, since this attack appears to have been an incident in that war? I'm not opposed to merging it into the HMS Invincible article, I'm just curious since several editors have suggested it, and I'm wondering what I'm missing. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's worth adding to the Falklands War article, since it was a minor action and a complete failure. As such it merits at best a paragraph in the Vinny article. WCMemail 23:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge - The article has and will likely always follow the format of a) setting the scene/context b) the alleged attack c) the reality. These 3 points are already covered at HMS Invincible (R05), so it's not at risk of undue weight. i.e. there isn't a likely to be such a weight of content added that requires the fork from HMS Invincible (R05). Mark83 (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merger. The Invincible article already has a more detailed account of this failed attack already. What's to merge? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Important to note that a large part of the expansion is your copy and paste from the article that many are proposing adequately covers the point. Mark83 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. The sources do exist, and in fact some even existed before in Wikipedia in five articles (attribution is posted on all the relevant talk pages) when this exercise started. It was unreferenced at the time. WP:Not paper. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And given the current size of this article and its referencing, it will not be a good fit into HMS Invincible (R05), which clearly does not give this event adequate coverage. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of what you've copied is stuff I wrote originally, so it's nice to be noticed. Whilst I appreciate a lot of what the article rescue squadron does I think it's misplaced here and by doing what you've done, you're kinda proving the point. It's a content fork and all of the content is already in other articles. WCMemail 07:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - iVote changed to Keep after recent updates to meet WP:GNG. Thanks 13! Article title can be addressed if the article is kept. BilCat (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The updated version does look a lot better, but I wonder if we are missing the point here. The attack was a minor event, more so because it did not take place beyond the aircraft taking off. That is possibly notable but only just and would probably not justify an article in its own right. What is more notable is the fuss caused by certain Argentine websites that allege an attack did occur, and that is what this article should be about.We should not try to be overly neutral and make out there are two equally plausible versions of what happened. No evidence and no top quality reliable sources confirm that the attack did occur, which means for our purposes that it did not occur because rumour and speculation is not evidence. Now, if we look at all these sources provided in the article, many if not all of them can be chipped away at or simply removed - they are blogs, unreliable fringe opinion, chat forums, and/or not properly interpreted or used. Rather than tidying up this messy article I think we should break it down bit by bit and we will find we are making a story out of almost nothing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / selective merge to HMS Invincible (R05), CFORK where the most relevant text is already included almost verbatim in the Invincible article. Cavalryman (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC). Expanded rationale. Cavalryman (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Article is no longer an orphan. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just wanted to make a comment about WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:TRUTH. WP:VERIFIABILITY requires that sources are reliable and the mere fact that someone has published outrageous claims in a book doesn't mean we have to repeat them. We are not required to include demonstrable nonsense about this attack when its plainly contradicted by the fact that the ship sailed home unharmed. WP:NPOV requires that the article should be written in an impartial tone that documents and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. An impartial tone doesn't mean we have to give equal weight to WP:FRINGE or conspiracy theories, rather an impartial tone explains in context how this claim is contradicted by evidence. A good example of how to deal with is in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. I am concerned given the lecture I've just had about WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:TRUTH that some may not understand that. WCMemail 13:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the results of this attack were a propoganda disinformation campaign by the Junta, including photoshopped pictures of the ships in flames. This continues to fuel conspiracy theories that we ought to spike. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which you do by writing in an impartial tone, not by writing as if they have equal weight. An impartial edit would be to state that HMS Invincible returned home unharmed but there are still claims in Argentine literature claiming she was seriously damaged or even sunk. We can easily deal with wartime propaganda; for instance the photos of the ship "in flames" and the original are available, it becomes easy to see what is propaganda. Equally there are photos of the meeting on Illustrious and Invincible in August 1982 showing the ship to be unharmed. Something that can be precisely dated to that meeting as Invincible was fitted with the Phalanx system on her return, so those photos can be precisely dated. I have a copy of an article from El Pais in 1982 just after the war stating she was undamaged [2]. I might have been persuaded to withdraw the nomination to give time for more improvement if you'd been prepared to be more collaborative but right now your personal attacks and revert warring instead of WP:BRD is convincing me I was correct to nominate for deletion. WCMemail 15:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed language should be included. It is a workable suggestion. As I said on the article talk page, ignoring the Junta's lies doesn't make them disappear. I have not made personal attacks, but you have. Look in the mirror, my friend. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the language you suggested, to wit: "HMS Invincible returned home unharmed but there are still claims in Argentine literature claiming she was seriously damaged or even sunk. Although there are many who consider the results of the attack or the claimed damage to the carrier to be fictional or disputed, the Argentine sources are replete with the claims." I think it is redundant with the paragraph that precedes it, but I'll leave it to you to make the adjustments. I like your suggestion of having a separate section debunking the lie, with photos, even. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fork does not pass GNG by itself. If the information is worthy, then it can be included in main article. — Ched (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Extensive work has been put into the article (just compare how it looked when it was nominated to now). As of this post, 200+ edits, 16+ kb of content, dozens of refs added, along with an extended "further reading" section and, the article is still being actively improved. I had considered 'merge' before, but think it should be kept now. - wolf 20:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This hardly expands on what is already properly included at the HMS Invincible article. The article is thus redundant. Notable events don't necessarily warrant their own article if they can be properly covered on another (see WP:NOPAGE). Most of the sources are in fact examples of baseless Argentinian claims of damaging the ship. The further reading section has been bloated to try and suggest there's enough unique coverage of this event to warrant its own article without any actual proof. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sources added to the article demonstrate the notability of this military engagement and subsequent conspiracy theory.PrisonerB (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete Having done several ship articles, I do notice it tends to be all in one block for these small blocks. I really don't see a reason why there is a separate article when it can combine into a fine-looking single article. Also, there seems to be more text in the main article, with better references, which is a curious situation. Merge is possible, otherwise delete. scope_creepTalk 16:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am reminded of the quote apparently misattributed to Samuel Johnson. Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good. The main part of this article is copied word-for-word from HMS Invincible (R05). There is no sourced text anywhere else in the article that is not redundant to the copied paragraph. Which means there's nothing to merge, and we should delete as a redundant content fork. Kahastok talk 20:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speaking of edit warring. Acting as a coordinated group, working in the same direction, some of our editors have deleted half the content and references as this AFD progreessed. See here. They say there is more than one way to skin a cat. Self fulfilling prophecy would be a euphemistic description. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. So what you're saying is that it's OK for you to edit the article during the AFD, but not OK for anyone else to edit the article during the AFD.
No, we should not be including an indiscriminate list of books not used as sources. No, we should not be using self-published books as sources where they have been spammed into articles despite being explicitly rejected by the community. No, we should not be using sources explicitly marked as unreliable at WP:RSP. No, we should not be having articles that just repeat the same information over and over again in different ways. No, an article on a specific incident should not be detailing random other incidents that are only connected by the fact that they involved the same ship. And no, none of this is controversial in policy terms. Kahastok talk 16:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone, who voted "keep" at an AfD is editing the article to try an improve it, of course that is "ok"... why wouldn't it be? If someone, who voted "delete", is editing an article so that it will be deleted, that is never "ok"... why would it be? I'm not referring to any specific editor, nor alleging that has happened here. But, after voting "delete", some editors have put a lot of effort into the page, but only to remove content and maintain status quo ante. It would be good if some of that effort also went into adding content to help improve the page, no? (jmho) - wolf 20:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I removed content, not with the intention of impacting the AfD, but because I genuinely believe it doesn't belong in this article. You say you're not accusing anyone, fine. But the inference is there so I'm just responding in the same general terms. I would welcome a discussion on any content I removed that you feel should go back in. You seem to be assuming all additions are beneficial, that is demonstrably not the case. And playing devil's advocate here, but you could be "adding content to help improve the page, no?" Mark83 (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What "inference"...? If you want to accuse me of something, accuse me. (Or strike your PA). - wolf 00:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
imply vs infer — Ched (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:I don't care - wolf 01:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@7&6=thirteen - I am genuinely offended that you have accused me of being part of a "coordinated group". I took the time to explain all my concerns in edit summaries. If you have issues with any of them then let's talk about them one by one. And for the avoidance of doubt, I have no association or collaborative relationship with anyone else who has voted for deletion or edited the article. You are very fond of quoting policies and guidelines, so please explain how your accusation above adheres to WP:NPA and WP:AGF. You are out of order and I invite you to consider what you have said and withdraw the allegation you have made against me.
And you aren't helping your case by your choice of "proof" above. The Express is a tabloid which is unreliable and sensationalist. AND even it didn't provide verifiability for what you were claiming. You would have a point if I was removing content that was properly and reliably referenced. Mark83 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few examples of content I removed, for context:
There are other edits that are due to my own interpretation of policy and MOS, yes. I stand by all my edits but that doesn't mean I'll not discuss any of them and work with others on their suggestions. Mark83 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@7&6=thirteen - You think changing "Acting as a coordinated group" to "Acting as a group, working in the same direction" is better somehow?? I find that as galling either way. You are wrong and I again ask you to withdraw your accusations. I'm not looking for an apology, just a recognition by striking out that you are withdrawing those allegations. I am doing my own thing, not in collaboration with others. The irony that the subject of this article is a conspiracy theory is not lost on me. Mark83 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7&6, I'm really disappointed to see this. You're capable of producing quality content, so I'm not sure what this is about. Adding a bunch of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery from sources that are questionable at best is one thing. Attempting to imply some sort of conspiracy or untoward editing is another thing all together. You tarnish not only this AfD, but your reputation as well with this sort of behavior. The information that's here is perfectly fine as part of a larger article (HMS Invincible (R05)), so I don't understand this approach of yours. I'll add my voice to the above and ask you to strike any and all implications of collusion here. — Ched (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen has been warned recently at ANI about making personal attacks and so making accusations of collusion here is unacceptable. Anyone can edit a page while its at AFD and all additions to any page must be reliably sourced. Mztourist (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked at the alternate version in the link that you posted. I am sorry, but I see no improvement there. If anything, it created confusion in the "Overview" section by listing other British ships that were attacked and sunk on other days in completely separate attacks unrelated to the one in the article. The section "Thwarted Attack" seems to repeat itself, and I see nothing useful about adding information on some Argentine pilot who falsely claimed to have sunk the ship. As for editors working together to edit the article, I believe that is the entire point of Wikipedia, not only are there no rules against it, but virtually every guideline explicitly says to do so.

    Look, the ultimate problem here is that the only reasonable point to having a separate article for this incident is the Argentine propaganda/conspiracy theory that the ship was sunk. Unfortunately, rules against giving Undue Weight and rules about Reliable Sources dramatically limit what can be written about that aspect. And when you take that out, what we can actually write an article about based on reliable sources and, let's be honest, consensual reality itself, is that an Exocet missile may have been fired from an Argentine aircraft on May 30th, 1982, and that regardless of the intended target, it never hit the HMS Invincible, and most likely impacted the water. There may be Argentine sources that say otherwise, but they are unreliable. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the attack itself is not notable. It is a part of a larger war, and actions and skirmishes are expected, but that doesn't make every action notable. If the attack happens during peacetime, it is certainly notable, but this attack is certainly made during a war, so it is not notable. For instance, look at USS Franklin (CV-13). The attack that crippled her certainly have worse effects than attack on Invincible, but it doesn't get its own article. Bottom line: Ship actions in the war usually does not prove notability. SunDawn (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone can (and did) edit the page while an AFD is pending. It ought not to obscure the fact that it was edited, and that other sources and content exist. The reason for the editing are irrelevant or unknowable; but the fact is there. WP:Duck That at least three of you have taken the time out to admonish me is disappointing (why? Apparently WP:Civil doesn't apply to you.), and to go to ANI, but also irrelevant to the AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Adding puffery to an article does not have the same value as adding quality sources that actually provide new information. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your abstract statement is correct.
But your opinion and mine are different. Your characterization does not make it so. Ipse dixit doesn't apply.
It was not puffery.
And it doesn't require insults or castigation; this isn't personal. But you do what you like. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is a general one. Your claim this is somehow an insult or castigation does not make it so. I have seen articles (some recently, some not so much) with what was said to be new material added that turned out to be nothing more than addition namechecks or duplicating information already in the article (in some cases stuff that was obviously sourced from the article up for deletion). I don't recall who made the additions, and frankly don't care. The point is they added nothing of value to the articles, and certainly didn't speak to real notability. But they can serve as a distraction for people who are impressed by a list of sources and don't dig much beyond that list. Intothatdarkness 14:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The idea that an editor who votes delete in an AFD cannot also edit the article in question goes against the spirit of the encyclopedia. For one, just because an individual votes delete does not guarantee that an article is going to be deleted, and the user may want to clean it up anyhow. Even if the article is sliding toward delete I'll generally remove flagrant errors or things like advertisement language, since that has no place on the encyclopedia. Also, in this instance, if an editor is adding unreliable sources to an article in hopes of demonstrating notability, then those sources should of course be purged. I'm AGF that 7&6 is not deliberately trying to deceive people; if anything, they're adding some of these bad sources without closer examination. If they can fall for bad sources, so can others. That's as good a reason as any for a delete !voter to edit the article in question if they find a major problem like that. The enormous dump of "further reading" materials I'm not as forgiving about, either 7&6 is being way too optimistic about those sources actually containing material that would help build the article, or they don't care what those things contain as long as it helps them dress up the article so it looks "nice". -Indy beetle (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why is the section called "thwarted attack" rather than eg "Argentine aircraft pick wrong target"? This article is about a non-attack on Invincible ( It could just as well be called "Sortie of [date]"). It alsoseems more like a coatrack for the claims of an successful attack/propaganda; alternative reading is that that section is padding to try and build up article size so looks less stubby. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are some very cogent arguments here for deletion, so no need to repeat them, but clearly this is not a military action which rises to the level of notability. I love Kahastok's misattributed quote. Onel5969 TT me 16:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a useless content fork of stuff that's already covered perfectly well in the HMS Invincible article. Also, there's serious questions IMO as to if it's even notable as an event. Since the ship was not even harmed in the attack and "missile flies by ship" isn't really a story in the first place. Let alone one that warrants an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of good discussion points, and hate to vote no, but I agree with User:Onel5969. Star7924 (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Attack_on_HMS_Invincible&oldid=1020866474"