Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989


 * 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. We base the decision about whether to have standalone articles on our policies and guidelines; the two most prominent at AfD being our Deletion policy and Notability guideline. Those advancing a keep position suggest that because 1989 was an important year in military history, it is encyclopedic to note the state of major militaries, for which they then provide sources to prove Austria was, in that year. However, this position is not supported by explicitly referencing any policies or guidelines. The presentation of sources suggests that some claim to notability under the General Notability Guideline is implicitly being made. However, these sources are challenged by those suggesting a delete outcome and these editors back up those challenges with appropriate policies (e.g. that currently classified information does not meet our Verifiability policy). They further suggest policy and guideline based reasons for why deleting this article is the appropriate outcome. Therefore when appropriately weighing discussion, there is a consensus to delete this article. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks notability. Unsourced (and tagged as such) since its creation 4 years ago. Looking for indepth sources about the actual subject gave no results.

This is a followup after the mass nom Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle, comparable to the individual nom Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination). Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, directory-like. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. On 1 March 1978 the "Wehrgesetz 1978" became law, which encompassed the "Heeresgliederung 1978" plan to grow the Austrian Armed Forces to 384,000 (84,000 active, 300,000 militia) by the early 1990s to be able to fully employ Austria's de:Raumverteidigung's concept. A total of 30 new Landwehrstammregimenter were to be raised. On 6th October 1987 the Austrian government enacted the "Heeresgliederung 1987", which instructed the armed forces to stop the growth of the militia at 200,000. Afterwards only the militia's infantry grew, making 1988/1989 the timeframe Austria's armed forces reached their maximum strength. On 29 May 1990 the "Wehrgesetz 1978" was cancelled and the army began to shrink, which accelerated with the Gesamte Rechtsvorschrift für Wehrgesetz 1990, Fassung vom 31.12.1992. The Austrian Armed Forces and their news magazine keep publishing a relentless stream about aspects of Heeresgliederung 1978, Heeresgliederung 1987 and Raumverteidigung (,, , , etc.), there is a bunch of doctoral theses about these topics (i.e). This is a malintent and spurious nomination and should e snowball closed. noclador (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep it civil. As to the merits; primary sources (like those from the Austrian army or government) carry no weight in determining notability. Doctoral theses usually aren't considered either, as they aren't published (or, if you prefer, self-published). What you do is argue why an article on the Austrian army and the impact the cold war and the end of the cold war had on it may be a good subject for an article: what you don't do is argue why a list of the structure in 1989 is a good subject. The article which is up for deletion provides zero information on the topics you are touching in your "keep". Fram (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We can add the information above to the article, if you withdraw your deletion request. As for reputable source: The book about 50 years of Austria's Armed Forces published by the Landesverteidigungsakademie (Defense University, ISBN 3-902455-03-9) from page 671 to 697 looks at the "Strukturentwicklung des Bundesheeres von der „Wende“ 1989/90 bis zum Jahr 2003", choosing 1989/90 as one of the key years for the structural development of the Austrian Armed Forces. (Other years relevant 1962/63 Bundesheerreform, 1978 Raumverteidigung, 2003/04 Heeresreform). noclador (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Landesverteidigungsakademie" is the military academy, an organisation of the Austrian Army. So by definition not an independent source at all. Fram (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The first one is the brigade association ("Traditionsversband"), like the Air Force Association; you will note the .at web address, the assertion of commercial copyright, and the photo of their annual presentation of financial statements at. But yes the second one, you can see it in the publisher, was partially BMLVS and partially the Command/Headquarters 4 PzGr Brigade. But this was two minutes work, really; there will be more. I am proving the general point; if the original writer wishes to properly reference and provide text to this article, it will be his job to do so. If it remains in its present state it might have been satisfactory in 2005, but not any more. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Per . As noted, 1989 is a pivotal year with the end of the Cold War. OrBats have long been regarded as category of list, and a particularly useful one at that. WP:N: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly, what is missing are these "independent reliable sources", which makes your "keep" rather meaningless. If you have good independent sources about the 1989 Austrian order of battle "group", now is the time to provide them. Fram (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Independent sources establish the notability of the subject. In this case, the Austrian Army. Articles are sourced from reliable sources, which have been provided above. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, no one is disputing that the Austrian Army is a notable subject, so no idea what you are trying to say here. And no, no independent reliable sources have been provided. Fram (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Defense Intelligence Agency throughout the late 1970s and 1980s issued the Military Intelligence Summary in eight volumes covering the entire world. Only a few are publicly available; Africa 1989 They continued issuing Volume II regarding Western Europe through the late 1980s - see Note that they do not actually have to have been declassified yet to meet WP:NEXIST; their existence is sufficient. These are independent of Austria; as reliable as anything can be on such issues ; and supported by other continuing interest picked up as early as "The Armies of Europe Today," Otto Von Pivka, 1973; as well as Thomas & Volstad, "NATO Armies Today," 1987; Isby and Kamps, "Armies of NATO's Central Front," 1985, and Austria's entries in John Keegan, "World Armies," MacMillan, 1979 (first edition); 1983 (second edition); and Chris Westhorp (ed.), "The World's Armies," Military Press, 1991. These continuing investigations of the subject as a "group or set by independent reliable sources" meet WP:NOTESAL. The article should be Kept. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On a more general note, the continuing interest in Western European armed forces at this level of detail, for this specific time period, thirty years later, can be clearly seen in the original German at Literature, covering Germany, U.S. forces in Europe, the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Canada (all 1989), and for the Warsaw Pact, East Germany (1989), and the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, 1988; translated English at |en&u=https%3A//www.relikte.com/. Again, these continuing investigations of the subject as a "group or set by independent reliable sources" meet WP:NOTESAL. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Note that they do not actually have to have been declassified yet to meet WP:NEXIST; their existence is sufficient. " Uh, no. For WP:V, they have to be verifiable, which a classified source isn't. An internal military source isn't even really published, just like company documents for internal use only aren't published. Using this as if they count towards notability is wrong on so many levels. None of your other sources is about the 1989 structure of the Austrian Army either. For WP:NOTESAL, you have to demonstrate that the subject of this list is notable, not that somewhat similar subjects are notable. Having a 1973 book about anything doesn't make a list about 1989 notable. Having some "relikte" website which doesn't deal with Austria doesn't make a list about the army in Austria in 1989 notable. Do you have any sources which are verifiable, published, and about the actual subject of this list? Fram (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NEXIST, which you use to claim that classified information is somehow acceptable as a published source, contradicts your claim: "Notability requires only the of suitable independent, reliable sources", where the link of existence leads to WP:PUBLISH, which clearly states "It is necessary for the information to be made available to the public in general, not just to individual editors or selected groups of people. To be considered published, the book must be distributed to the public in general, not to individuals." Classified military information is clearly not "published" under this definition. Fram (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally, your other sources, ""NATO Armies Today," 1987; Isby and Kamps, "Armies of NATO's Central Front," 1985." aren't only pre-1989 (and thus can hardly discuss 1989 specifically), but they are about the NATO, while Austria isn't and has never been a member state of the NATO. So these sources are completely irrelevant for this article and AfD. Fram (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What you and I are disagreeing about is the definition of a group or set. You believe the problems you have identified above invalidate the entire subject. I am advancing these references to indicate there is continuing interest in the entire widescale subject (whether or not a particular country has been written up in detail specifically, or, the specific listings only remain in the defence ministry documents). There is continuing interest, as the references prove, throughout the 1980s; this satisfies the requirements of WP:NOTESAL. However, in its current state, the article is entirely unreferenced, and of course it should be expanded with a proper introduction, extensive annotations, and fully referenced. But AfD is not cleanup. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec)Please reread NOTESAL. What it says is that the group, in this case the "structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989", needs to be notable, not that every individual entry in the list needs to be notable. What you read into it is that if the subject "structure of some army in some year" is notable, then the structure of every army in every year is notable. NOTESAL is not about the notability of a larger or different subject than what the list is about, the actual list subject in itself still has to be notable, but not every item in it. That the group "NATO countries" has been discussed in the 1980s doesn't meet non-NATO member Austria in 1989 notable, and that is not what NOTESAL claims. The "group" as discussed in NOTESAL is the Austrian Army in 1989, nothing else. Fram (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "AfD is not cleanup", but you nor anyone else has provided a single independent source which can be used to actually reference anything in the article. Your sources are not about the subject (and/or not even published), and Nocladors sources are not independent. Fram (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we had not had an edit conflict, you would have seen sooner that I was in the process of finding the sources; for example, at the formation level at Panzergrenadierbrigade 9; and BMLVS/Kommando 4. Panzergrenadierbrigade: 50 Jahre 4. Panzergrenadierbrigade - Festschrift. Hrsg.: BMLVS. HDruck BMLVS, Hörsching 1. Dezember 2013. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again these aren't independent sources by any definition of the word (never mind that the first one doesn't seem to have anything specific about 1989 either), and the second one seems to be extremely obscure or hard to find, so I couldn't really judge it even if it were independent. Fram (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what general point you are proving, actually, except that there still are no independent reliable sources about the subject. I'ld rather see you take your time and provide these sources, than rush to present more and more unacceptable sources (for the sake of notability of the subject of this article, some of these sources can be used to verify stuff or to provide more general background). Fram (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is the Traditionsverband of the 4th Brigade is an independent association, an independent source, like the trade union type thing that the Air Force Association is - otherwise it would not be having a annual accounts meeting!! - it would be funded by the government!!, and so is the source from the newssite noen.at I have just added regarding the 3rd Brigade 60 Years of the 3rd Brigade. I have also just added a very detailed link regarding the structure of the Austrian Army; battalion types, in the German peace and security journal Sicherheit und Frieden in 1986, which was unchanged in 1989. We can source and verify the structure did not change (it was in Noclador's opening discussion of sources, which is now in the article under 'Bibliographic notes'). Once I work through the translations, the opening paragraph on unit types should be referenced. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason we are not expanding the article now, is that you made it very clear that no matter what sources we will add, you will never accept any of them. You reject all military or military affiliated sources, which makes it impossible to work on any military article. For every military article the best and most detailed sources are military history offices, military museums, military associations, military websites, etc. Most of i.e. the Italian side of the the Western Desert Campaign is referenced through publications of the Italian Army's History Office. The entire current US Army organization is sourced back to the US Army's website. Same goes for other armies, air forces, navies, coast guards, even police forces. As long as you insist to only use non-military sources we're at an impasse as i.e. sources from the time don't go into detail as that information was classified, and today's non-military sources (like newspapers) give only a rough overview as they are meant for the general public. The details we can get from books and publications by military or military affiliated organizations go into excellent detail. I.e. the Austrian Heeresgeschichtliches Museum in Vienna has a permanent exhibition about the Cold War and that includes a full organization listing. The Truppendienst magazine has run extensive articles on the Raumverteidigung concept and the associated organization (https://www.truppendienst.com/fileadmin/_processed_/b/9/csm_online_zonen_1979_archiv_lampersberger_f7a4429a2a.jpg including maps]). If you insist that we must bring only non-military affiliated sources as references for military articles, you prevent us from doing any work. If you would impose your personal view onto the Military History Project, the the project could not create a single detailed article. No military article would have details that go beyond what an average newspaper writes; but as in encyclopedia we should strive to provide as much information as possible. In short: your intransigence is preventing an improvement of the article. noclador (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are countless military articles which are based on non-primary, independent sources. This is because there are loads of reliable, independent books, magazines, ... about nearly every aspect of the military. Weapons, transport, battles, wars, ... get an unending stream of documentaries, books, etcetera about them. Perhaps dial back the hyperbole a bit instead of claiming that insisting on independent reliable sources (you know, the kind of sources we insist upon for every other article) somehow would make it "impossible to work on any military article". Fram (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "countless military articles", great! Show us. Be constructive and find articles about Austria's armed forces. If it's so easy as you say then I am sure you can spend a few minutes to list them for us Military History editors to work into the articles. While you're at it and since it's so easy, please also find articles about the current Hellenic Army organizations. And Turkish Army please too; but no-no to any military affiliated sites. Go, I am eager to include the sources you bring into the articles. noclador (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your non sequiturs are rather tiresome. Fram (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep it civil. noclador (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete no references provided so fails SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. I am not convinced that an order of battle serves any purposes without a battle and don't accept that 1989 is in any way significant, even as the end of the Cold War which Austria, as an ostensibly neutral and largely demilitarized country, was not part of. 1989 is no more significant than 1956 (Hungary), 1961 (Berlin), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) or 1981-4 (Pershing II). We don't need ORBATs of every European country at different points throughout the Cold War, they tell us nothing.Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "largely demilitarized country"?? Read my comment above. Austria's armed forces reached its peak in numbers and equipment between 1988/89. And at 284,000 men out of a population of 7.8 million was one of the most militarized nations in the world. noclador (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The terms of the Austrian State Treaty restricted the size and equipment of the Austrian armed forces, they didn't even have an effective jet fighters until 1988 or air to air missiles until 1993. While they may have had a sizable militia I don't think that makes them "one of the most militarized nations in the world". Mztourist (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * West Germany 2,100 troops/100k population under full mobilization, Italy 1,900 troops/100k population under full mobilization, Austria 3,640 troops/100k population under full mobilization, and that is at the reduced number of 200,000 militia. Your initial assertion of a "largely demilitarized country" was way of the mark. Also your comment on the dates "1956 (Hungary), 1961 (Berlin), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) or 1981-4 (Pershing II)" is choosing randomly events that were part of the larger Cold War. So, yes, 1956, 1961, 1968 are irrelevant, as those where events within the larger, global, epoch-defining Cold War, and that war ended in 1989/1990. noclador (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Troops/population - so what? The dates I gave are not random, but rather were the hottest points in the Cold War when conflict was most likely in Europe, but we don't have Orbats for those years and we don't need Orbats for 1989/90 just because the Cold War ended then. If you want to make a point that in 1989/90 Austria had X divisions and Y thousand troops, then go ahead and add that detail on the Austrian Armed Forces page, we don't need an Orbat for that, just some RS, which this page doesn't have.Mztourist (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have Orbats for the years you mentioned, as it takes years to design, build, organize an army, navy, etc. We need an OrBat for 1989 as in that year the Cold War ended, which was a war of deterrence, deterrence by having massive standing armies on both sides. After 1989 these armies disappeared as part of the peace dividend. The organization of these armies is a relevant topic, that needs to be covered in wikipedia to understand the Cold War and how it was "fought". Adding troop numbers, as you suggest, just scratches the surface without giving the context to understand this war.
 * When the Italian Military History Commission consisting of University of Milan, University of Bologna and Armed Forces History Office professors and officers published its history of "The Armed Forces and the Italian Nation" in 2005, they divided the project into three volumes 1861-1914 (founding to WWI), 1915-1943 (entry into WWI to disbanding of the armed forces in September 1943), 1944-1989 (refounding and to the end of the Cold War). As you can see, your personal opinion that 1989 wasn't an important year isn't shared by historians. noclador (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not need Orbats to understand the end of the Cold War, they tell us nothing useful and certainly don't provide any context as you suggest. I really don't care what the Italian Military History Commission thinks unless they published an Orbat of the Austrian Army in 1989, which would at least give us an independent RS for this page.Mztourist (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not say "We do not need Orbats" if actually you mean to say "I don't need Orbats". For readers interested in the military history of their country military organizations are a valuable resource. For readers interested to understand the Cold War beyond the headlines, military organizations are a valuable resource. Wikipedia Military History Project editors work on them, because through them we can flesh out the military history of countries and provide a deeper understanding of the military thinking of the time. Your personal taste should not block other editors from expanding these informative articles. If we followed your suggestion then we would also not need Football World Cup game results, as it's only important to know, who won the final. The Cold War was a war of deterrence. The deterrence was large standing armies. Therefore the size, organization, and disposition of these large standing armies is valuable information that should be on wikipedia. As for your comment about the Italian Military History Commission: I showed you that 1989 is seen by historians as an era defining year, and you dismissed it with "I really don't care". Rude and bad faith answer. If you cannot accept facts that run counter to your initial argument "1989 is no more significant" than please refrain from being dismissive to other editors, who provide sources showing that 1989 was indeed a relevant year. noclador (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not say we need Orbats if you really mean to say WP:ILIKEIT. I have already explained that 1989 was no more important than any of several other key years in the Cold War and that the Orbat doesn't provide any greater understanding of the Cold War than just saying how many divisions, tanks, howitzers, soldiers etc. an army had. Its pure WP:CRUFT. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When did the Berlin Wall fall? When did communism fall in Hungary? When did Havel become president of Czechoslovakia? When was the Romanian revolution? When was the Iron Curtain opened? When did Mazowiecki become Prime Minister of Poland? When was democracy restored in Hungary? When did the Bulgarian Central Committee return its power to parliament? Give me date. Then tell me about the East-West confrontation in Germany, the Fulda Gap, REFORGER, BAOR, 2ATAF, 4ATAF and V and VII Corps without checking up any of the military organization titles. noclador (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And the Orbat of the Austrian armed forces in 1989 tells us what exactly about any of those events? Pure cruft. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean the Fulda Gap where nothing happened in 1989, the Fourth Allied Tactical Air Force which did nothing special in 1989 (well, yes, one battalion was disbanded that year), or Exercise Reforger, which didn't happen in 1989? Never mind that none of these have anything at all to do with Austria? Perhaps it is time to stick to the actual topic of this AfD, and not bringing up everything related to the Cold War in general (at best) or posting "comments" which only make your own defense weaker? Having a healthy, vigorous debate on e.g. the sourcing is good and is the core of AfD (at least for those cases where people are in disagreement); posting one unrelated, baseless remark after another is simply disruptive. Fram (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mztourist: "1989 is not important" - I show 1989 is important. Mztourist: "Military organizations are not important" - I show military organizations are important. Mztourist: "1989 is not important" - I show again that 1989 is important. Mztourist: "Military organizations are not important"... ad nauseam. Maybe you bring a source that states 1989 is not an important year? Btw. what does Operation Proud Deep Alpha and Patrol Base Diamond III tell us about the Vietnam War? A minor aerial bombardment and a tiny base that existed for a few weeks. Pure WP:CRUFT. We should delete such articles. They don't do anything to help understand the Vietnam War. noclador (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * this is an unsourced page which in my opinion lacks notability. You created it and want to defend it which I understand, but arguing with me and doen't make your keep case any stronger. Nor does your misplaced criticism of Vietnam War pages I have created. You can propose them for AFD (although that would smack of WP:REVENGE and I will take you to ANI on that basis if you do). The differences are that they are referenced and things actually happened and so I have no doubt that notability is established and they would be kept.Mztourist (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you plan to delete every single military organization article related to the Cold War we're arguing here the merit of keeping them all. Re. Fulda Gap - now that you have learned what it is, how did the US plan to defend it? What were the disposition for the defense? Try to explain that without an resorting to military organization information. Same goes for Austria: where did the Warsaw Pact think to advance, what were the Austria defensive dispositions? Try to explain that without an going into detail about the Austrian armed forces organization and Raumverteidigung concept. noclador (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please only ping me again if you have any reliable, independent sources about the structure of the Austrian army in 1989. Fram (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In my view the Vietnam War articles you created lack notability, but as I am not editor involved with the Vietnam War I am certainly not going to nominate them for deletion, as I trust your judgement on their value. I am also not going to nominate the articles about obscure artists and scientists created. None of them seem notable, but as I believe wikipedia should include as much knowledge as possible I am not nominating articles for deletion. I will argue for expansion and more details whenever possible. As for the organization of Armed Forces of Europe during the Cold War - just to focus on Austria: the organization of the Austrian Armed Forces during the last decade of the Cold War, reaching is maximum strength in 1988/89 and the unique Raumverteidigung concept - those are already a 100 times more notable than Patrol Base Diamond III, which exist for a month and involved a few 100 troops, while Austria's armed forces Heer 78 organization existed between 1978 and 1990, involved half a million troops over time and shaped the Austrian nation. I do not know where you are from, but I will argue that this topic is highly relevant for Austrians and Austria's history; much more so than a four day limited aerial bombardment as Operation Proud Deep Alpha. If wikipedia is only about the American perspective then we're doing it wrong. The military organizations of European nations during the Cold War happened, they are as real as the articles you created, and they are notable - if not for Americans, then for the people of those nations. Also these articles are or can be sourced to military publications or government publications, however Fram has already repeatedly stated that he will reject all of them. The notability of military organizations is established, the year 1989 as notable is established, the lack of sources can be rectified. But first and foremost Fram's disruptive, ill-informed crusade to delete all military organizational articles needs to be stopped. noclador (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you haven't convinced me to change my vote and haven't presented any policy based arguments for retaining this page. Your comments to me and have long since passed WP:BLUDGEON to become WP:DE. Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

you plan to delete all military organizations at the end of the Cold War and then you don't want to argue the merits of your actions. This is not how this works. You want to destroy content, and you don't want to hear counter arguments. You will be pinged every time there is an argument refuting your points. If you don't wish to hear these arguments, then withdraw your deletion request and desist form disrupting the military history project any further. noclador (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats, you are now the first user ever where I have needed to use the "mute" function. Fram (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment
and keep talking about "Order or Battle" and "OrBat" when in fact the article is about the structure/organization of the Austrian Armed Forces. One should know the difference between these terms before arguing for deletion of the organization of the Austrian Armed Forces, because one is "not convinced that an order of battle serves any purposes without a battle". noclador (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first line of the page states "The order of battle of the Austrian Armed Forces..." You wrote that when you created the page in 2016. While Order of battle states: "In modern use, the order of battle of an armed force participating in a military operation or campaign shows the hierarchical organization, command structure, strength, disposition of personnel, and equipment of units and formations of the armed force." One should read before they write. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what Mztourist said. If we are not fit to argue for deletion of this page because we don't know the difference, then by definition you are not fit to write these pages. In fact, your infraction is then worse, because you are actively pushing this "error" into the encyclopedia, into the mainspace, where unsuspecting readers might be led to believe that the terms are used interchangeably. Fram (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * / Yes I wrote that intro four years ago when I created this article titled "Structure of the". Other editors have since pointed out that the preferred terms are "Organization" or "Structure", which I have been using since. Yesterday I saw my error in the intro and decided not to correct it, as it seemed incorrect to correct it now when criticizing you for using the term. I have learned over time and so should you two too. noclador (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ... which you could easily have said without adding the "One should know the difference between these terms before arguing for deletion " bit of course. It is not only false (the distinction between a structure or an order of battle has nothing to do with the actual deletion nomination), but rather disingenuous when not knowing this didn't stop you from creating the article with the wrong text (and letting it in place for all these years) in the first place. Fram (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you now say there is a distinction between Orbat and structure/organization, but at 1. above you say "We need an OrBat for 1989 as in that year the Cold War ended, which was a war of deterrence, deterrence by having massive standing armies on both sides...The organization of these armies is a relevant topic, that needs to be covered in wikipedia to understand the Cold War and how it was "fought"." So which is it? An Orbat or a structure/organization? is absolutely right, you are being disingenuous and are in no position to criticize us. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I used the term in response to your use of it, then after two lines switched back to organization. Trying to talk to you in your terms. noclador (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't find that credible. I suggest that you WP:DTS and let the deletion process play out. Mztourist (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. noclador (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article clearly needs sourcing, but the topic is notable, 1989 is an important year in the Cold War and the information is relevant to military history. AfD is not a place for cleanup.   // Timothy ::  talk  19:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: It been many years since I made an edited on wikipedia noclador hopefully you remember me I always enjoy reading your articles. What brought me back here was that I began to notice alot these orbat are having there information removed and it led me to here. Now to answer why I support keeping this article I believe it is a good historical piece, it provides a snapshot of what the organization look like back in 1989. You can argue that this article doesn't need to be here as nothing significant happen to Austria in 1989 but it give people like me a good insight to what organization was back then to what it is now. 1989 happen 31 years ago and it is only going to become a more distant past as time rolls on. If we delete this article now all that information would be lost to history, think of the value it would provide to people 100 years from now. They know about this information because we preserved it, that is the gift of Wikipedia. Unless dealing with hard drive space I say keep this article Corpusfury (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * as you are an inactive user who has not participated in an AFD before please review [] and provide policy based arguments why the page should be kept. regards Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I stated before this article is of historical value but if you want me to state a policy. Then this article fall within the notability guideline meaning "addresses the topic directly and in detail" Corpusfury (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot imagine why a list of the structure of the Austrian army in a particular year would meet WP:GNG no matter how important that year was in terms of history. This article also lacks good secondary sources, of which none seem to exist, if I'm reading the above conversation correctly. So arguing to keep seems... rather odd to me. I would strongly encourage everyone involved to take a step back and evaluate the quality of this article from a neutral standpoint. I have no skin in this game; this isn't a subject that interests me particularly. Just evaluating from a policy standpoint, and I cannot possibly see how this could remain a part of Wikipedia.  M r A urelius R   Talk! 16:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1989 is clearly a notable year in military history and these articles serve a useful and notable purpose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp, as an admin, you probably should know better than using "notable" in such a confusing manner. I have no idea even what a "notable purpose" is supposed to be, WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. In an AfD, as you know, you are supposed to give policy- or guideline-based reasons to keep an article and to argue why the nomination is incorrect. Your keep does neither. The article now has three references, including one from 1986 (which can hardly indicate why the 1989 structure of the Austrian Army is a notable subject), one that doesn't even mention 1989, and another one that, surprise, doesn't either. The bibliographical notes start with 2 primary sources and ends with another primary source. What is it actually in that article which has convinced you that it is indeed a notable subject (not 1989 in military history, not teh Austrian Army, but the actual topic of the structure of the Austrian Army in 1989)? Because the article makes no case for this, and the utter lack of reliable independent sources about this indicates that the actual outside world doesn't seem to consider this such a notable topic after all. Fram (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, the last desperate flounders of someone who really, really wants something to be deleted and knows it probably isn't going to be. "Your opinion isn't valid because..." "You should know better because..." "I know best because..." "I'm going to patronise you by explaining how AfDs work." Sorry, that's my opinion and this is an AfD discussion. It has been pointed out to you several times why 1989 is a significant year in world military history and why military organisation changed after that year, and therefore why military organisation of countries affected by the Cold War was significant in this year. Attempting to pooh-pooh the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you does no favours to your position and no service to Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Allright, so fuck guidelines, I have an opinion? The only reason I patronised you is because you apparently either don't know or don't care about what AfD is actually about, and that isn't "my opinion is that this should be kept because it is useful, and I'll add "notable" twice because that may confuse closers or other voters even though my opinion has nothing at all to do with what notable means on enwiki and in the AfD nomination." Yes, you really should know better. I don't care about "my position" and the favours or disfavours I'm doing it, whatever you mean by that; but upholding standards across enwiki, instead of discarding them for an article you like or a topic you are interested in, is actually a service to Wikipedia, and calling out people who impose their personal preferences over generally accepted guidelines, sourcing rules, and so on, also is a service to Wikipedia.
 * "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." So, what is your policy-based argument? Fram (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a smattering of information drawn from primary sources and basically amounts to one big WP:OR violation. No secondary sources have been put forward to demonstrate the notability of this topic. Find me some journal articles or books that talk about Austria's armed forces in 1989 in detail and I'll change my mind. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Can be improved. BlueD954 (talk) 12:51, 21 October 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.