Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Vitoria order of battle


 * 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   speedy keep. SarahStierch (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Vitoria order of battle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is too long and too useless. It is kind of a list, but the units in the list are not linked. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you accept this argument, then it applies also to practically every other article on an order of battle. Where links to units or persons (commanders) exist, they have been included. This AfD promulgation is frivolous, in my opinion. HLGallon (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This appears to be just a normal article on orders of battle.  Unless you can find something wrong with this article (e.g. copyvios), this shouldn't be treated any differently from other articles on orders of battle.  If you don't like having articles on the whole concept of orders of battle, you'd do better to propose a policy change at WP:Village Pump (proposals).  Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The battle itself is undoubtedly notable. I agree with the rationale above - if we are to have orders of battle in Wikipedia, and currently we do, then this stands. As I am arguing elsewhere on an AFD, there has to be some consistency in our approach to these, otherwise WP coverage becomes even more arbitrary than it is now. If the argument is that in general orders of battle should not be included then that really ought to be argued as a general proposition, or on an example well known to editors especially in the US - something like First Battle of Bull Run - otherwise we get a situation where decisions are being made on people's prejudices and interest in particular battles. There were much bigger forces engaged here, and most of the units more notable even if not currently blue linked. --AJHingston (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - A valid rationale for deletion is not present in the nomination. Being "too long", "too useless", being list-like, and lacking links are not valid reasons for deletion. For valid reasons for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. An order of battle is a perfectly valid type of article, and many have been developed to GA and higher status. This is a grossly ill-informed AfD nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. What a truly ridiculous nomination. Why on earth does it matter if the units are linked or not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.