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 12:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

1995 British Army order of battle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no rationale provided for creating an order of battle for the British Army in 1995. We are not going to have an order of battle for every year of the British Army's existence, so why this one? Also, no sources have been provided, and multiple attempts to communicate with the article/list creator have failed. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete I agree. User seems to be simply adding Orders of Battle (ORBATs) with a) no verifiable sources b) no logical reasons for it. The best are the 1989 orbats but even then, they lack a justification as to why. Sammartinlai ( talk) 04:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete due lack of sources and communication A good argument can be put forward that a 1995 listing of units is notable and justifiable in the encyclopedia, but this user cannot be allowed to just write whatever they think is vaguely right without following WP:RS and being prepared to communicate and improve articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge with List of British Regular Army regiments (1994) to become List of British Army regiments (1994). This is not an order of battle or even list of formations and units, as it includes no organisations above the regimental level. We have several lists of British Army regiments, and none of them, as far as I know, has been nominated for deletion. As a full list of the British Army's regiments (including both Regular and Territorial) after the reductions immediately after the end of the Cold War, this article could have value. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  @ Buckshot06: are we sure that there were no signigicant changes between 1994 and 1995? If so then I support that suggestion. Spinning Spark 14:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

No significant changes, no; the 'Options for Change' force reductions were being carried on throughout this period, but neither article tracks exact dates of battalion & regiment disbandment/redesignations.. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Agree with Buckshot06's suggestion. Gavbadger ( talk) 15:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  I don't think we should be merging material sourced from what appears to be a non-RS personal website. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This was during peacetime, is nothing more than bureaucratic record-keeping, and fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert ( talk) 03:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC) reply

It does not fail WP:GNG - whole pocketbooks are written on the organisation of the British Armed Forces - see Pen & Sword's every-year series. Eg the latest 2016-17.. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. For the reasons above. And also delete 1989 British Army order of battle and 2007 British Army order of battle for same reasons. Dormskirk ( talk) 10:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  @ Dormskirk: I don't think 1989 British Army order of battle should be nominated for deletion; it has significance--end of the Cold War and can be worked upon. The 2007 British Army order of battle by all means. Sammartinlai ( talk) 13:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC) reply

OK. Fine with me. Dormskirk ( talk) 14:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete 'Re-organize all of these articles that are by year into a single table which has columns such as these: name of regiment, type (armor, artillery, etc.), date formed, date disbanded, notes (such as which regiment it was merged into) such as I just proposed here: Talk:2007_British_Army_order_of_battle#Proposed_TableDelete per nom, Sammartinlai, Narky Blerk, and Noclador and my thoughts below.I see nothing particularly significant in WP:RS to justify this or other similar articles like it. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC) [revised 05:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC), 14:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC), 08:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)] reply

@ Peacemaker67: Are you going to submit some of the others? I would probably vote to delete them too. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Thinking about it, but sort of hoping that the creator will take advice after the block ends... Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ David Tornheim: I suggested that 2007 British Army order of battle be merged with List of British Army Regiments (2008) although now I have second thoughts and think the former should be nominated for a AfD. But that's my thoughts. Sammartinlai ( talk) 11:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Is there any WP:RS for either? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 15:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Maybe history books or news archives, but not sure and not confident. Sammartinlai ( talk) 15:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Then why keep any of it? It's clear that the user put a lot of work into it, and I hate to see all that work lost--what a horrible experience as a new Wikipedian. I could also see how it might be useful to some people and researchers. But at the same time, if we allow any one of these to stand, that would justify one for every year of the British Army's existence. It also seems to have problems with verifiability. To avoid losing all that work, I might support a usersfy of the existing work, but would oppose any new pages like this being created, until clear guidelines are setup on what is acceptable.

Maybe we could have a single article that has all the units from British history from all time, where the units are listed in the order they came into being (or in the order that they came to be under the British command) and the date they were eliminated? Perhaps as a table with a column for each of the key dates. One that contains all the information for all the years. That would work for me. What do you think? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 15:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I'll defer to you over this but personally either remove or merge 2007 British Army order of battle. Sammartinlai ( talk) 03:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks. @ Peacemaker67: What do you think about the table idea? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 05:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I think I'd first want to be convinced that there are reliable sources for this material. Having said that, the British Army has had many complex expansions and contractions in its centuries of existence, and I can't see any article/list covering them all. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I too have concerns about lack of sourcing (with only one source at present), although all the linked articles seem fairly well-sourced. My guess is that there is sourcing somewhere given the significance of the British military. What I like about it is that it gives a top-down view of where all of these articles on the various regiments fit together. What I don't like is the extreme level of detail in the Royal Signals, and the listing of all the companies within each infantry regiment. It seems like too much detail. If it had only the regiments, the company organization under the regiment could be addressed within the article on the regiment.

How many re-organizations are we talking about? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Dozens over the years. I agree about the level of detail. My rule is you go two levels down in orders of battle, but don't go below battalion or independent company-level sub-units. So you wouldn't mention infantry companies, and you'd mention the signals squadrons, but not signals troops. You are right that the breakdown of battalions could be covered in the regiment articles. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

FYI. I created such a proposed table here: Talk:2007_British_Army_order_of_battle#Proposed_Table. I did just look at List of British Army regiments (1994), and that it far more readable that this list. I'm considering changing my vote to reflect Buckshot06's proposal to merge, or just eliminate the ones we don't need, like this one. I can definitely see justification for separate British infantry brigades of the First World War, British brigades of the Second World War, and many of the others in the British Army lists, which are certainly far better than one table that would attempt to explain it all. What I don't want is to clutter those useful lists with one for 1994, 1995, 1996, etc. Having a handful since WWII is tolerable, but no more than that. So I do agree with and appreciate this WP:AfD that will get rid of unnecessary articles. Possibly an article like the 1994 list can cover a time span rather than just the specific year, as I assume the WWI and WII entries.

How about we have a centralized discussion with proposals for all of the lists we would keep (with justification for keep) and all of the lists to delete at one of these AfD's and then point to the centralized discussion from each of the individual AfD's? It might be easier to have a global discussion than having to look at each list individually out of context. I'm not suggesting the result of the decision there would trump the individual AfDs--we could still vote at the individual AfD while giving our justification for the results of the more global discussion. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 15:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment. A timeline of the British Army by unit and year, as suggested above, feels like an interesting and encyclopedic topic, but a seriously difficult one to research and to write. The Light Infantry gives an example - mergers, disbandments, elements moved elsewhere, you-name-it. Narky Blert ( talk) 14:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply

1. Speedy delete 1995 British Army order of battle. There is no justification to have an order of battle for a year that saw no relevant changes in world history. Orders of battle for i.e. 1939 (outbreak of WWII) or 1989 (end of the Cold War) are highly relevant and should be created for all countries involved in these wars.
2. I just saw 1989 British Army order of battle and it is partially a copy/paste of my work at User:Noclador/sandbox/Structure of the British Armed Forces in 1989. I kept that draft hidden in my sandbox, because I could not find enough sources to confirm the correctness of the information. As people have copied part of my work from my sandbox and added it to the 1989 British Army order of battle and some have begun to add sources to the lesser work that could be found there, I have now copy/pasted all of the draft into the wiki mainspace. I do not know what the etiquette/rules re. the copying of material from one's sandbox are, but I am right now quite pissed that this has happened. If one copies stuff from my sandbox a) ask and b) copy it all and then let's work together to source and improve it. noclador ( talk) 13:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I am not surprised that you are "pissed" and quite rightly so; plagiarism like this is unacceptable. As per my comment above, I am even more of the view that we should delete 1989 British Army order of battle and 2007 British Army order of battle as well. Dormskirk ( talk) 00:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Someone did this to me once too; moved my sandbox into the mainspace, resulting in two articles on the same subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Seriously not cool. I have not heard of Wiki-plagiarism, but that sounds like the right way to describe it. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

G'day Noclador. Who did the copy-paste? I suggest posting about it on their talk page if you haven't already. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The editor, who did the copy-paste has been following this discussion and came to my talk page to ask "Sorry". I accepted it easily and won't name the editor here, because he is doing good work and is an editor with positive and helpful attitude. What I care about now is to find editors willing to help source the 1989 British Army order of battle, because at the end of the Cold War the British Army was at its most complex and since then has been in steady decline. In my view the key order of battles for the British Army are 1881 ( Childers Reforms), August 1914, September 1939 and December 1989 (end of the Cold War). All structure or orders of battle for other years are of little value. noclador ( talk) 09:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

How about having a centralized discussion about which years we keep and which to ditch? And then once that is decided, we could submit all the years that are not in that list to AfD and refer to the centralized list? I feel like having a discussion at each article a bit overkill. Sammartinlai Do you agree it would be helpful to have a centralized discussion about this? A similar concern about AfD on multiple articles has come up here ( permalink) -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I see there is a process for "bundling" multiple AfD's: WP:MULTIAFD. We should probably use that. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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.