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

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

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)[reply
]

Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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 [8]. 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 Noclador 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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
"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)[reply]
Your non sequiturs are rather tiresome.
Fram (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Please keep it civil. noclador (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. 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.
  2. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please do not say we need Orbats if you really mean to say
WP:CRUFT. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You mean the
Fram (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
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
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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
Since you
Fram 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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
Fram 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)[reply
]
WP:DE. Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Fram 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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]

Comment

Fram and Mztourist 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)[reply
]

Noclador 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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
Fram 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)[reply
]
... 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)[reply
]
Fram is absolutely right, you are being disingenuous and are in no position to criticize us. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
Certainly not. noclador (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Corpusfury as you are an inactive user who has not participated in an AFD before please review [[9]] and provide policy based arguments why the page should be kept. regards Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Structure_of_the_Austrian_Armed_Forces_in_1989&oldid=984906118"