Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coastal Forces of World War II


 * 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   no consensus. Secret account 03:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Coastal Forces of World War II

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is purely WP:OR, grouping other navies' ship classes by British designations that were never applied to them. This is not, and cannot be, reliably sourced, and cannot become anything more than WP:SYNTH at best. The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 03:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources including books published by the United States Naval Institute, and others. The article may need work, but AfD is not a substitute for article improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But sometimes blowing it up and starting over is called for, as in the case there the title is a notable subject but the article is utterly unverifiable original research and synthesis, as is the case here. - The Bushranger One ping only
 * I wrote that when I was starting out, as a sort of speculative article to see whether it would fly. It wasn't clear then whether it was a good idea or not, and I remember having doubts. In those days there was little interest in anything to do with naval coastal forces on Wikipedia, and I wrote a number of the articles that did exist in that area. But goodness, what a harsh view you have Bushranger. Many countries operated coastal forces in WWII in a rough parallel to British coastal forces. To call that "utterly unverifiable original research and synthesis" is absurd and over the top. Still, the article has not been developed and has a low view count, and since it attracts such a level of vitriol it should be deleted. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if it comes across as harsh; sometimes at oh-dark-thirty my brain's happy-o-meter starts pointing over to 'old codger'. The problem is that while those are indeed in rough parrarel to the British coastal forces, there aren't any reliable sources that say 'these are directly comparable to these others as a group'. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bushranger. Unjustified WP:Synthesis which cannot be supported by RSs Buckshot06 (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The claim that the topic cannot be reliably sourced is blatantly false. Here's a selection of sources:
 * Allied Coastal Forces of WWII
 * Coast Watching in World War II
 * Coastal Force Actions
 * Battle of the Narrow Seas: The History of Light Coastal Forces in the Channel and North Sea, 1939-1945
 * White Plumes Astern: the short, daring life of Canada's MTB flotilla
 * Kriegsmarine Coastal Forces
 * The United States Coast Guard in World War II
 * British Coastal Forces of WW2
 * Secret Flotillas
 * American Coastal Defences 1885-1950
 * Light Coastal Forces in the Present War
 * These works are specifically about coastal forces and operations. There is also a large number of general works about WWII which will include coverage of coastal forces, e.g. The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II.
 * Warden (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please explain how these sources about coastal forces explain how 'coastal force' boat X is the same thing as 'coastal force' boat Y, which is the subject of the article. The subject may be notable. The article, IMHO, needs WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say "the same thing". It says "Other Navies operated equivalent boats, but classified and named them somewhat differently."  This seems reasonable per WP:OBVIOUS.  If you're having trouble with the general concept, please see Brassey's Coastal Forces. Warden (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment an article on the inshore/small boat operations of the participants of WWII would be a valid one. But it needs attention so that there is no whiff of OR or SYNTH. At the moment the title and section titling is dubious - the former should be generic, the latter specific to the nations' proper titling of those units. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 13:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not sure about other countries, but in the USA the Coast Guard is a separate branch of the military since 1790 and their operations during WWII would be clearly encyclopedic. The poorness of this started article is not a matter for discussion here; clearly encyclopedic topic under GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 10 March 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.