Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Royal Navy personnel in 1983


 * 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. Lacking coverage of the specific topic in reliable sources, LISTN admits not providing final guidance, but defers to NOTDIRECTORY and in particular point 6, which is a plausible reading of the consensus delete argument here. j⚛e deckertalk 18:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Royal Navy personnel in 1983

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Don't believe that this list is relevant - why would you need to know this information by year? This is an orphan and it seems as that it was only compiled for 1yr, making it more irrelevant Gbawden (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. You raise a few points, so I'll answer them one at a time:
 * "Don't believe that this list is relevant"
 * I'm sorry you feel that way; I feel differently. It would help if you could be more specific.
 * "Why would you need to know this information by year"
 * I thought it would be academically helpful to see the structure of the organisation, and the key people within it, each year. It's currently very difficult to find out who was in what post in a particular year. For example, if you want to find out who was Flag Officer Portsmouth in 1953, how can you do so without an article like this? cf. List of sovereign states in the 10th century BC, List of solar eclipses in the 14th century, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2013 and of course Category:Lists by century for examples!
 * "This is an orphan"
 * It needn't be, but "building the web" is something I haven't done yet with this article. I can add some links in if that would solve your concerns.
 * "it was only compiled for 1yr"
 * I am planning to write a full list for each year, but it'll have to wait until after Wikimania before I have time. Besides, Wikipedia is a work in progress; "that an article is one of an incomplete series" isn't a reason to delete this article, but is instead a reason to write new ones.
 * I don't think your reasons for deletion are particularly strong but I stand ready to be corrected :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. This directory seems to be an excessively and unencylopedically detailed breakdown, unless our goal is to list a bunch of non-notable people. If breaking it down by year, why not month or day, since someone might have retired partway through the year? This type of listing does not serve any purpose I can see, and seems to run afoul of Wikipedia is not a directory.  Edison (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All these people, being officers of above two-star rank in combat or senior positions, are notable in terms of the usual guideline, WP:SOLDIER. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. First ships and now personnel? Grouping by year is not a good idea for lists that don't change a great deal from year to year. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've been pondering this AfD since I saw it posted, and having now reviewed WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I am convinced that this list of Royal Navy brass from 1983 is not notable and not suitable for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. That having been said, if this article were for 1982, and not 1983, and written as a supporting sub-article for a larger parent article on the Falklands War, or for 1940 and written as a supporting sub-article for a larger parent article about the Royal Navy's role in World War II, I reserve the right to express an opposite opinion.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep I am baffled at this AfD, honestly. All of these people are notable in terms of the WP:GNG, and as a 1983 version of the RN's structure, it's a notable as Royal Navy (though it has a little less text because we haven't done the research yet). How can one build User:Dirtlawyer's history of the RN since 1945 if one deletes the supporting articles? Yes we don't have the same articles for 1982, or 1956, or the time of the withdrawal from Aden, or Confrontation in 1965-66 etc - because we haven't got around to writing them, but one can't tell the RN's story if one deletes the key personnel? On this argument, one should delete the senior officers' listing for 2014 as soon as 2015 rolls around!! This is the basis for detailed histories, because we can research these officers' names and compile the data from them!! These are crazy nominations!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, but there's the rub, Buckshot. Most of the years since 1945 are not historically significant in terms of who the Royal Navy's leadership was . . .  In the last 80 years, the RN leadership is historically significant in 1939–45, 1956, 1982, 1991–92, 2002–03 . . . and?  As far as I can tell, the 1983 RN leadership is not one of the more significant years.  The nautical mileage in your wake may vary.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We disagree over the definition of 'historically significant'. It's *all* historically significant, if you're focusing on the RN as an institution worthy of recording in itself. Now I don't think that we should have a list for every year, but about every five years would work. Thus what this nom proposes doing is destroying such a basis for detailed research before it has gotten started! Buckshot06 (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Recording every year = WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2014 (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.