Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military history of Catalonia


 * 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   redirect to History of Catalonia. BJ Talk 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Catalonia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This "article" is just a bunch of headers, and even some of them have a strong Catalan separatist POV. To make matters worse, it will be pretty hard for a region to have a "military history" when that region has never had an army. This article's clearly a separatist attempt to spread free propaganda on Wikipedia, it's completely useless and, well, actually it isn't really an article. Taraborn (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This could be a legitimate article, but each of the sections woudl need a paragraph of text following the "main" or "see" link. I am not convinced that the article is completely hopeless, but at present it is a waste of space.  Tag for expasnsion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Contrary to the nom, the area did have a military history. For example, from the 8th to the 12th century, there were various armies marching all over the region. However, this article as it stands seems to have been configured with POV pushing of Catalan separatism in mind, with some of the links provided having little or nothing to do with military history. It might be better to blank it and start from scratch than to start with a 'Separatist history of Catalonia' article and try to fill it out into some sort of true military history. Agricolae (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously the region had a "military history" in the sense that wars occurred there, but if we had to include every region's "military history" then we would end up with endless useless articles. That way we could have the articles Military history of the Basque Country, MH of Andalusia, of Galicia, of Murcia, Cantabria, Aragon, Northern Castile, Military history of Emilia-Romagna and Military history of the southern half of Sicilia. Well, doesn't make sense, does it? Something different would be, for example, Military history of the Holy Roman Empire, the Crown of Castile or the Crown of Aragon, since those former states actually DID exist, they obviously had an army and, well, a reason for having an article other than spreading separatist propaganda. --Taraborn (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically agree with that. I guess it should be checked if other regions have this kind of article (and at first sight, they don't) and/or wether this has been discussed before. If not, probably the best thing to do is delete this article, in order not to create a bad precedent  MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 14:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has nothing to do with making sense. If there is sufficient notability and verifiability with regard to the military history of the southern half of Sicily, then yes, there could be an article on it, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. Slippery slope arguments need not apply. There are numerous small regions with published military histories, describing the local militias, battles and conflicts fought in the area, regiments raised locally to serve in national wars, specific soldiers and heroes, etc. (And by the way, we can argue about semantics, but the medieval state of Catalonia actually did exist, and had an army.) The problem here is that the topic is potentially valid, but the article is being used for something different, and doing that different thing badly at that. The article is rubbish, a misuse of namespace, but that need not necessarily negate the namespace. Agricolae (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think that Wikipedia "has nothing to do with making sense" then you fail to understand how Wikipedia policies or guidelines work at the most basic level. See Ignore_all_rules and Use_common_sense. Wikipedia's rules are loose and general, and are especially in need of "making sense". I'm pretty sure that there's enough "notability and verifiability" to make a great article about the military history of the southern half of Sicily, but why the southern half and not the southern quarter? Doesn't make sense, does it?


 * Indeed, if there is sufficient reliable published material written on the Military History of the Southern Quarter of Sicily, why not? If there is sufficient RS (without OR) on the topic to make it notable and verifiable, there should be such a page. As to 'making sense', I don't see the same common sense as you do in invoking IAR to throw out the WP:N and WP:V cornerstones in favor of a WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions argument that if we have this article we need every other. I have seen a published military history for a small Massachusetts village. It appears to be reliable, and the topic has also been covered in other regional histories. If that satisfies the reliability and notoriety standards, then this represents a valid topic for a page, and that there are thousands of other towns or regions has no bearing whatsoever. 'Sense' has nothing to do with such decisions - notoriety notability and verifiability do. Agricolae (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, if you think that there was a medieval state encompassing modern Catalonia, you're deeply mistaken because there were a lot of smaller states in the region at the time. And considering the County of Barcelona as the former "state of Catalonia" would be like considering modern Russia as the new Soviet Union (though it's the most important part, there are major differences). --Taraborn (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sort of begging the question. The namespace we are discussing is not "Military History of the Area Encompassed by Modern Catalonia", but "Military History of Catalonia". The term Catalonia is used by some medieval scholars to refer to the state controlled by the counts of Barcelona, which included not only the County of Barcelona but also various adjacent counties under their feudal hand. I have seen it argued that to call this simply the County of Barcelona is to make the exact mistake you are decrying, like calling the former Soviet Union simply Russia, to use your analogy.  I told you we could get into the semantics, and now we have. Now maybe we can get beyond it, because it just doesn't matter.  A region or place or people that never had it's own army can still have a military history, and several such pages exist: Military history of Oceania, Military history of Europe, Military history of Birmingham, Military history of African Americans, Military history of Nagorno-Karabakh, and even Military activity in the Antarctic (redirected from Military history of Antarctica). Agricolae (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You made a horrendous spelling mistake. --Taraborn (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Delete -- Basically agree with the bottom line of the nominator. Still, as Peterkingiron says, maybe the article is salvageable, but for that it does need, per Agricolae, to be blanked and started from scratch (dont agree with the latter, though, in the need for a "Separatist history of Catalonia", there is Catalan separatism already).  MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 02:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I was not proposing a "Separatist history". I was saying that the article currently reads as a "Separatist history" and as such it makes a poor starting point for a "Military history" article. Agricolae (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep and discuss the exact coverage on the talk page, with an rfc if necessary. We don't delete articles to settle content disputes of this sort. DGG (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I advise you to read the "article" I've proposed for deletion. It's utter trash, useless and with a heavy separatist POV. It's an embarrassment for Wikipedia (though it seems that article is ignored by almost every English Wikipedia reader, it's still embarrassing and should be removed). --Taraborn (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep Needs a lot of improvement: all of the headers need to be main article links eg some of them need to be consolidated under a single header. I can even see myself being in favor of a title change, should a better one be proposed. However, these examples only prove the article is viable; it should never have been brought for deletion. Taraborn, you have, as of this date, not shown a single concrete example of "POV", "a separatist attempt to spread free propaganda on Wikipedia", "separatist propaganda", or "a heavy separatist POV". Note also that PoV is not a valid reason for deletion, as content that is PoV can be replaced. And by the way, Re: 'include every region's "military history"'. What a fascinating idea. This article, and your, shall we say determined?, search for arguments to back your case have accidentally landed on a really good way to treat the history of Europe. As you say, it is replete with examples of regions being taken back and forth by different empires; I will definitely consider the introduction of further articles on the history of particular regions. Anarchangel (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to History of Catalonia, a far superior article with which it is redundant. History of Catalonia may need splitting due to its size, but not along the lines of millitary versus non-military history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - despite all the formatting, the current "article" is entirely free of content. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2009 (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.