Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/118th Regiment of Foot (1794)


 * 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   merge to 118th Regiment of Foot. lifebaka++ 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

118th Regiment of Foot (1794)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

In accordance with Wikipedia Rules, the reasons for deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/118th_Regiment_of_Foot_(1794) are as follows:

No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." Context is different from content, treated in A3, below.

No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages and redirects, including soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information.

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amishjedi (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. What you quote are guidelines for speedy deletion, and none of those apply here. But you brought this article to the AfD, so what should be examined is if this regiment is notable enough to have an article here. In my opinion a regiment during the Second British Empire has a certain inherent notability, but since I don't know of a policy that covers it (except WP:Notability of course) I will not give a !vote. --Amalthea (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further comment. There definitely is context and content. While the article needs expansion, I had no trouble understanding what it is about.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  21:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article is short, it is sourced and clearly states what it is about. Edward321 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. Is a regiment by definition notable?  If not, then I see no reason to keep this stub as it provides no truly notable aspect or notable information other than formation and disbandment, which isn't remarkably notable either.  I'd like to keep it for possible expansion, but the info here serves little more than a red link would. --Trippz (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a regiment is inherently notable. I doubt there's any definitive policy on this specifically, but the article satisfies WP:V and WP:NPOV, and otherwise looks pretty solid. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that regiments have a certain notability, but why can not all three articles in the disambiguation page, 118th Regiment of Foot be merged into one article with that title, which is of course what people will search for. They are all part of the British Army. Merge all three to 118th Regiment of Foot. --Bduke (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, provided the consensus is that a regiment is notable (I still have some doubts). But if the conclusion is keep, then the mentioned articles should be merged.  Good catch.  --Trippz (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - a regiment is a very substantial military unit which seems to justify inherent notability. If the 3 118th Foot regts were different, then it seems to make for greater clarity if they also have separate articles.. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Since they isn't any info beyond when it was raised, put all 3 articles together. That are all regiments of the same army in the 1760s with the same name, they can share the same article Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. This is a clear a case for merge as can be found. A user cannot be expected to know that the regimental number was reused three times. The article is two sentences long. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2008 (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.