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. Sandstein 09:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)reply
When this was heading for deletion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination), a new article was created with the same info, but for 1987 instead. The argument was that there was one source for 1987 (compared to the none for 1989). It was already explained at the other AfD that one source isn't sufficient, that
WP:GNG requires multiple such sources (reliable, independent, indepth sources adressing the actual topic of the article or list), but this didn't help.
So, delete, per previous discussion and because this fails
WP:GNG.
Fram (
talk) 11:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, when broken down by year this borders on an indiscriminate collection of information. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Geschichte (
talk •
contribs) 12:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete minimal sources and no evidence of notability so fails
WP:GNGMztourist (
talk) 14:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Can be improved.BlueD954 (
talk) 14:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
How? Which sources about the 1987 Portuguese army would you use to improve this and make it more GNG-compliant?
Fram (
talk) 14:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Do you have to always reply to every vote? I ask the same to you to my AfDs.
BlueD954 (
talk) 15:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
No, I only reply to votes with weak or incorrect arguments (and even then not to all). "Can be improved" is not a reason to keep an article if you (or anyone else) can't provide the sources needed to improve the article and make the deletion reason incorrect. AfD is not a vote, but an attempt to reach a consensus based on policies and guidelines. This may mean that the minority position "wins" if they actually have the support of said policies and guidelines; but this then often is a surprise to the majority side, which doesn't understand where the closure comes from, why their opinions are dismissed, ... Pointing out flaws in votes during the discussion gives people a chance to provide the necessary support for their arguments, or to change their vote based on the discussion.
If you would e.g. have replied with "you could use source X or source Y", and these sources turned out to be actually acceptable, then suddenly your "weak keep" would have become the strong argument, and my "delete for lack of sourcing" would be the weaker position, even though at the moment it is the majority position.
A reply, a challenge, to a vote, is not something to be offended about, but a chance to clarify what you mean, to provide support for your position, to actually strengthen the chance that your preferred outcome will happen.
Fram (
talk) 15:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE,
WP:NOTCATALOG, and failure to meet
WP:LISTN and
WP:GNG. Unfortunately there is no better reason to keep this article than the
article where it was copied from, as we still only have a small entry in an almanac and a pair of fan sites as sources. In fact, there is even less of a reason, as one of the main arguments to keep the 1989 version was the fact that 1989 was an important year in the Cold War due to the fall of the Berlin Wall. 1987 has no such importance. We're left with essentially what amounts to an indiscriminate collection of obscure facts: no one has demonstrated that this particular army, in this particular year, deserves a standalone list of its order of battle.
CThomas3 (
talk) 16:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't answer to you Fram.
BlueD954 (
talk) 15:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I was the creator. The subject of the list, the Portuguese Army in 1987, meets GNG, and the items within the list are notable in line with
WP:NNC.
Buckshot06(talk) 23:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per PMC and Cthomas3 - this topic doesn't appear to have been discussed in reliable sources.
SportingFlyerT·C 12:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, the type of subject has been deemed nonencyclopedic in several discussions.
Geschichte (
talk) 16:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete New vote. Cancelled above. Agree only with Geschichte.
BlueD954 (
talk) 06:15, 21 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.