Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Swedish 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1989

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks notability (as evidence by reliable, independent, indepth sources) for this specific combination.

After Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle, individual countries have been nominated at Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989, and the ongoing Articles for deletion/Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989. Fram (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete largely unreferenced and nothing showing that 1989 was in any way notable for the Swedish armed forces.Mztourist (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedence, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and that Sweden wasn't even a Nato member. Geschichte (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete – it is an impressive collection of information, but 1989 was not a particularly significant year for the Swedish armed forces, so the topic is not notable. In addition, I don't doubt that the information comes from somewhere but as there are almost no sources in the article, we can't tell how much is original research. --bonadea contributions talk 16:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Sweden's neutrality is irrelevant. The organisation of forces at particular points might be notable, but it would be necessary to have a series of articles on the situation at particular dates, to indicate the situation before and after reorganisations.  1989 looks like a random year, so that I also lean towards deleting.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand the intent of the creators properly, 1989 is in no way random - it represents the last year, realistically, a war could have broken out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, where Sweden would have been in the firing line due to its position between the bulk of Norway and the Soviet Union. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not discussed at all on the page and is a highly debatable "what if", nothing to show that 1989 was any more significant than any other preceding year. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that that is not brought out on the page. But to say that war could have broken out in 1990, 1991, or 1992 is "highly debatable" as opposed to 1989 is ridiculous: by October 1990 East Germany had merged with West Germany!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you reread what I wrote. "Preceding year" means before 1989. Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 11 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, we cannot start to create new articles for any phenomena that are not *mentioned* in the encyclopedia - they have to be mentioned somewhere a first time. For both navigating the structure of the Swedish Armed Forces historically, and for developing more detailed coverage and new pages on the individual entities of the Swedish Armed Forces, any concerns about each individual entry meeting the GNG in detail should be put aside, so the coverage of the Swedish Armed Forces can be further developed, and their structure navigated more effectively. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As has been replied to this argument before, that is nonsense: "we cannot start to create new articles for any phenomena that are not *mentioned* in the encyclopedia". Being an orphan is not a reason to be deleted, or not to be created. This list has no bearing on the acceptability of any other article. Second: "any concerns about each individual entry meeting the GNG in detail": I hoped that after all these AfDs, you would finally know that this is not the concern at all. The combined subject, the structure of the army in 1989, has to meet the GNG. That doesn't mean that every individual entry has to be notable, no one ever asked for this and this was never the deletion argument. Fram (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As has been shown elsewhere, closing administrators have been impressed enough by the notability of these kind of article to reject your repeated assertions that they all lack notability - the Danish deletion attempt failed. As is repeatedly shown in the official documents, the structure of the Armed Forces is detailed in depth (reliable); more generally, Sweden and its defence and its changes with the end of the Cold War are discussed in all kinds of sources (independent); this satisfies the notability requirement. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's see, two "delete"s and one "no consensus", that's hardly an overwhelming "rejection" by "administrators"? "Official documents", as has been explained at nauseam, are fine for verifiability, not for notability. The independent sources are more general, not about 1989 (as evidenced by e.g. a source including "1988-2009" in its title). Fram (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep 1st: there is an equivalent article on the Swedish wikipedia sv:Svenska försvarsmaktens organisation 1989, which is identical to this one. 2nd: Sweden, as a neutral country directly opposite the Warsaw Pact, was one of the most militarized nations during the Cold War (29 wartime brigades vs. 48 wartime brigades in Germany, which had 10 times the population) and therefore is notable as a Cold War participant. 3rd: The year 1989 was chosen as in that year the Swedish Armed Forces reached their zenith in strength as defined by the sv:Försvarsbeslutet 1987 law, which originally defined the Swedish Armed Forces Structure from 1987 to 1992. However in December 1989 with the Cold War over the sv:Försvarsutredning 1988 inquiry was voted into law, which ordered the armed forces to drawdown its units starting in 1990. 1989 was the zenith of Swedish military might. 4th: On the Swedish wikipedia this article is part of a series of articles regarding the development of the Swedish Armed Forces over time: i.e. sv:Svenska försvarsmaktens organisation 1999. 5th: The Swedish wikipedia also lists a series of books dealing with the Försvarsbeslutet 1987 and the resulting armed forces structure:
 * Skoglund, Claës (2009). Det bästa försvarsbeslutet som aldrig kom till stånd. Svenskt Militärhistoriskt Biblioteks Förlag. ISBN 978-91-85789-57-3 (inb.)
 * Agrel, Wilhelm (2009). Fredens Illusioner - Det svenska nationella försvarets nedgång och fall 1988-2009. Atlantis. ISBN 978-91-7353-417-8 (inb.)
 * Björeman, Carl (2009). År av uppgång, år av nedgång - Försvarets ödesväg under beredskapsåren och det kalla kriget. Svenskt Militärhistoriskt Biblioteks Förlag. ISBN 978-91-85789-58-0 (inb.)
 * Hugemark, Bo, red (2015). Den stora armén. Skrift / Forskningsprojektet Försvaret och det kalla kriget (FOKK), 1652-5388 ; 44. Stockholm: Medström i samarbete med forskningsprojektet Försvaret och det kalla kriget (FoKK). Libris länk. ISBN 9789173291231

In summary: a notable year, a notable armed force, a notable topic, a needed article - therefore "Keep". noclador (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A WP page in another language doesn't establish notability particularly as the Swedish page was created on 7 November 2016 after you created this page on 7 October 2016. Provide RS for your assertions that: Sweden "was one of the most militarized nations during the Cold War" and "1989 was the zenith of Swedish military might" Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete 75,000 bytes stood up on 7 references. Undersourced, insanely detailed, packed with redlinks and as far as I can see has no raison d'etre. If you put a citeneeded template for every assertion with no reference, you'd double the size of this leviathan. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:09, 10 December 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  04:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As has been explained before, "not meeting CLN AOAL" is not the reason to delete these, so meeting these is a strawman. AOAL explains what the advantages of a list are over a category or a navigational template, but this is irrelevant. I'm not really sure how a 4-year old, 75kB list is supposed to be " a rudimentary list", but in any case that sentence is "in comparison to categories". A category for the 1989 order of battle would be an equally bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not matter that the nom ignored CLN, AOAL in their reason to delete; Noms usually fail to mention or sidestep reasons to keep an article. In this case the article clearly meets CLN, AOAL and meeting this negates that reason the nom gave for deleting when it states, "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks" AOAL is not dependent on the existence of a category, but there is a category Category:Military units and formations of Sweden Category:Structures of military commands and formations in 1989, but the header of CLN states that the existence of a category is irrelevant when considering the value of a list.  // Timothy ::  talk  09:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PS The lead and section headers do need expansion, I will do so if the list is kept.  // Timothy ::  talk

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I don't think you really understand categories and lists and how they are treated in CLN, if you somehow equate the contents of the list with the existence of a category the list belongs to. What CLN is really about, is if we had a category "structure of the Swedish armed forces in 1989" where the actual entries of this page, this list, belonged to (so the individual battalions or formations or ...). The comparison you make here between the list under discussion, and the category "Structures of military commands and formations in 1989" is not relevant at all. WP:AOAL is "Compared with a category, a list may have both advantages and disadvantages." and then listing these advantages; this has nothing to do with whether the list should be kept or deleted for notability reasons, and I am not ignoring it as a reason to keep the article. The whole page you cling to is only about the distinction and overlap between cats, lists and nav, and that having one is not a reason to delete the other. Nothing on that page addresses whether a list should be kept on its own merits or not, which is what is being discussed here. I hope some kind closing admin will explain this to you. Fram (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I replaced the category above with the correct one Category:Military units and formations of Sweden. You're condensing and frankly insulting comments such as "I hope some kind closing admin will explain this to you" are uncivil. We've both been at AFD long enough to know individuals can hold valid though different opinions on guidelines.  // Timothy ::  talk  11:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That people can hold valid but different opinions, doesn't mean that people can't have invalid opinions as well. Note that the category you now used, "Category:Military units and formations of Sweden", isn't about 1989 (or any other year), so is not an equivalent of the list we are discussing here. Your whole argument is a strawman because a) no one is suggesting deleting this list "because we have a category for it", but because the list topic isn't notable, and b) we don't have a category for the structure of the swedish armed forces in 1989 anyway, so no one could be making the argument you are trying to counter. As an example: if someone was arguing that List of Swedish Army brigades should be deleted because we have Category:Brigades of the Swedish Army, then your references to CLN would be perfectly valid. The current sitation is completely different though. Fram (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Orientls (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another poorly sourced order of battle article relating to an arbitrary year. Of the five sources linked in the article, four are broken links (and one is dated as of 1977, thus making it a poor source for the structure of the armed forces in 1989). The other is, apparently, the Swedish 5-year defense plan as of 1987 -- which may reflect a plan for 1989 but does not establish what the Swedish armed forces actually had in 1989. Also, the article lead says that the article was created from, among other sources, "the Swedish Wikipedia articles about Swedish units histories", although Wikipedias are not themselves reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 19 December 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.