Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Danish 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 no consensus.  JGHowes   talk  01:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Comparable to other, recently deleted articles for 1989 for other countries: this one as well doesn't establish notability for this exact topic through reliable, independent sources which address this topic significantly (not just one aspect of it, or other years, or other countries).

See Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 and Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination) for already deleted ones with similar arguments. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete largely unsourced and fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Denmark was a member of NATO at the time, it is appropriate to retain an article about the structure of its armed forces at the end of the Cold War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Any policy-based reasons? Any indication why this is notable according to our guidelines? Fram (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Danish forces were a key part of Allied Forces Baltic Approaches and not answering comments. BlueD954 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Any indication that this subject is actually notable? Your keep doesn't address the actual article (which is specifically for 1989 and the structure, not about the role of the Danish Army in the Allied Forces Baltic Approaches) nor the lack of good independent sources for it. Fram (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, the consensuses (consensi?) at the previous AfDs for similar articles make it clear that they are not assumed to be notable without sourcing, and once again we have an article that does not have sufficient sourcing to show that the structure of the Danish Armed Forces specifically in 1989 is a notable enough topic to require its own standalone article. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article meets WP:CLN WP:AOAL for keeping a list. 1989 is a major milestone year in the Cold War. Per CLN "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks".  // Timothy ::  talk  11:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CLN is a guideline that concerns lists as compared to categories and navboxes, and has nothing to do with whether or not the topic of a list should be kept on the grounds of notability. As you well know, notability is not inherited down the line - just because 1989 was a notable year in the Cold War does not automatically mean that the structure of the Danish Armed Forces in that year is also notable. Not in the absence of any sources about the topic, anyway. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The "deleting these rudimentary lists" is about new lists, not ones 3 year old; and it only deals with the argument "no list needed, we have a category for this", which is not an argument used to delete this. So basically, you are using a strawman argument. You haven't adressed the total lack of notability for the subject (which isn't "1989 as the End of the Cold War"). Fram (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: per TimothyBlue.Aielen85 (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Whatever the level of sourcing per NNC on each individual item of this list, GNG concerns, we cannot start to create new articles for any phenomena that are not *mentioned* in the encyclopedia. For both navigating the structure of the Danish Armed Forces historically, and for developing more detailed coverage and new pages on the individual entities of the Danish Armed Forces, any concerns about each individual entry meeting the GNG in detail should be put aside, so the coverage of the Danish Armed Forces can be further developed, and their structure navigated more effectively. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all. "we cannot start to create new articles for any phenomena that are not *mentioned* in the encyclopedia."? Articles should have notability on their own, they don't derive their notability or their right of existence from being mentioned in a list. For lists themselves, your quote continues with "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.", and also has a link for recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes, which doesn't really match this list here. None of the links here go from a general list to more specific items about the same subject, i.e. none of the linked items is about an element of the Danish army in 1989. An article "structure of the Danish Army" would be a much better fit for this purpose, as it is a more likely search term, a more comprehensive one, and a more notable one. When I look at List of Danish regiments, I don't see 1988, 1989 or 1990 mentioned at all. So the 1989 date is, for the Danish Army structure, not a defining date, not a last or first year for many elements. If you want to have "their structure navigated more effectively", this is a very poor choice, as it is not a logical nor a notable choice. Fram (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: In December 1989 the Danish Parliament published its analysis of the Cold War structure and the future organization of the Danish Defense. After the publication the process of realignment and reorganization for the post-Cold War era began. The three book thick report can be found at Book 1, Book 2, Book 3. Therefore for the military history of Denmark 1989 was pivotal year. noclador (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A primary source which doesn't seem to be discussed in any more general article about the Danish army, nor in this one. By the way, the 1989 structure is also included in Structure of the Royal Danish Army for some reason. Fram (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per . Although 1989 is a significant year, not all topics about it require standalone articles.  Mini  apolis  23:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I came here after seeing WP:ANI, and before leaving my comment there. I agreed, in the similar Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 that the article should be merged.  In this instance I am going to voice a keep.  The lede doesn't spell out, but I gather the year 1989 is particularly significant as the end of the Cold War triggered significant changes in the Danish military, and that seems to be a notable topic.  A shorter article, with better references, that focussed on those reforms, would be a fine entry in the wikipedia.  I said at Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974, and I will repeat here, that I think it is clear that  has worked hard on these cold war related articles, and the best thing we could all do here is to welcoming and try to help them make future efforts that come closer to the kinds of articles we aim for, like better referencing, and a clearer expression of what is notable about the topics.  I am working on an essay Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment which I think is relevant here.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability concerns can be addressed. As I see it, there are two potential justifications for keeping this article. The first is that 1989 was a key year in the Cold War from a military perspective. The second is that 1989 represented some kind of Cold War peak for the Danish military. I do not buy the first argument at all - although 1989 was undeniably crucial in the political sense it is only one of half-a-dozen potential dates from a military point of view. 1950 or 1956 or 1979 might all be easier to justify. The choice smacks of the kind of Wargame: European Escalation-style "what-if" enthusiasm about how the two sides would have fared in a war. The second argument may have more weight but I have yet to see it addressed in the discussion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:44, 26 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.