Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Army Cadet Force units


 * 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 to delete at this time. The nominator had three points: whether the list serves a purpose (and the consensus was that it does); whether the list is too long (which is fixable and not a reason for deletion); and a challenge to the sources. This last challenge can only be overcome by the addition of reliable sources, which means sources that are independent of the subject. No such sources have been forthcoming. Therefore, although there was no consensus to delete on this occasion, sources should be provided swiftly, and if none appear, then it will be in order to renominate this material for deletion in early course.— S Marshall T/C 08:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)'''

List of Army Cadet Force units

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does this list serve a purpose? It's too long and unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - like many other lists, it is of interest to some, and Wikipedia readers do gain pleasure from seeing the range of members of such things. People in an ACF may certainly hope to consult WP to find which other ACFs there are. The situation on sourcing for lists seems to be rather different from normal articles - certainly we seem much more laid back about the requirement, not least because lists naturally act as collections of pointers, and the other pages do have sources, so why copy them en masse... it's a grey area, certainly, but the status quo does seem sensible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Too long and unsourced? WP:SOFIXIT; AfD is not for cleanup. This is something easily fixed by referencing, and by splitting off sublists if necessarly. There is no policy-based reason for deletion advanced by the nominator and thus I propose a speedy close. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly acceptable list with defined scope. No reason whatsoever for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAPOLICY. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Limited in scope, focused, seemingly complete, possibly useful. A good list. I'm not crazy about the layout, but there are no style points at AfD... Carrite (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PRETTY, WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAPOLICY. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. TenPoundHammer, it's your opinion that this should be deleted. It's not backed up by policy in any way, shape or form. You can't then complain that those who have expressed opinions that it should be kept are not using policy-based arguments. There's simply no good reason this article should be deleted. WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We cannot have editors running around slapping AfD notices on articles without good reason and then claiming that endless policies and guidelines should be quoted to save them. That makes a mockery of the hard work of editors trying to create articles instead of delete them and of the underlying purposes of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIR. Lists are subject to the same standards on verifiability, notability, no original research and others as any other article. Even if reliable secondary sources can be found for all this information, which looks unlikely, it will not be useful as a navigation page for other articles or for the development of Wikipedia. I can see no other use for it than as a directory. Ten Pound Hammer asked a legitimate question there.--Charles (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability for lists is the same as it is for articles, by which it refers to the scope of the article, not every entry within it. See WP:LISTN, "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." I doubt that you're claiming that Army Cadet Force should be deleted as non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Scope of the article is the listing of the units. Has there been significant coverage in several sources of listing the units? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (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.