Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987


 * 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)

List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987

 * – ( View AfD View log )

When this was heading for deletion at 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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Delete minimal sources and no evidence of notability so fails WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Can be improved. BlueD954 (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.  C Thomas3   (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't answer to you Fram. BlueD954 (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , WP:NNC only applies to individual items in an otherwise notable article or list. The topic itself must first be determined to be notable per the WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. I would be interested to hear why you think two self-published fan sites and an almanac entry qualify. No one doubts your facts, but merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  C Thomas3   (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the same reasons as Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination), which just closed as delete today., you can claim GNG all you want, but as with the aforementioned article, there are insufficient in-depth reliable sources that indicate that 1987 specifically is a notable year for the Portuguese Army. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per PMC and Cthomas3 - this topic doesn't appear to have been discussed in reliable sources. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per PMC and Cthomas3. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, the type of subject has been deemed nonencyclopedic in several discussions. Geschichte (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete New vote. Cancelled above. Agree only with Geschichte. BlueD954 (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2020 (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.