Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Army Regiments (1800)


 * 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 keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

List of British Army Regiments (1800)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's already List of British Army regiments, List of British Army regiments (1881) and the year 1880 [sic: 1800] has little or no significane for British Army history. The article also has sparse references, some which are dubious and doesn't meet WP:RS. It also is quite WP:NOTDIR. It should be deleted or if not, merged carefully with the above two articles or others than are related. Sammartinlai (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sammartinlai (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve A listing of British Army regiments during the Napoleonic Wars has merit (and merging it into a list 81 years later would be very tricky). Remember all our military articles started off years ago at this kind of quality. However, while the article is worthy of retention, that is not to be understood as full support for the editor creating these articles, who needs to read, understand, and start fully complying with WP:PILLARS - or will be blocked. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As it is not fully sourced. However it was fully sourced then I think it would make the basis of a useful article. Dormskirk (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid deletion rationale. There is no requirement that an article be "fully sourced" to survive deletion, and policy requires that content is verifiable. We fix what can be fixed, and even if any specific content proved unverifiable we would simply remove that content and preserve the rest. See relevant policy at WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Endorse Postdlf. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - in which case please can the creating editor insert the missing sources. The information must have come from somewhere. Dormskirk (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * On further review I am prepared to accept that the current referencing is already adequate. Dormskirk (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator seems confused as to the list's content or scope; as the title makes clear, this list is actually for 1800, not 1880 contra their nomination. postdlf (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused. Whatever date is is it doesn't meet standards and at best can be merged with other lists. We don't need a directory of cancelled regiments for the page's creator's own sake.Sammartinlai (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, what sort of entry is it with strikethrough articles like * 1st West India Regiment - ?? [Formed in West Indies] ?! Sammartinlai (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that we have these lists of regiments solely for their creators' sake: see List of Imperial Russian Army Don Cossack regiments, also completely unsourced, but completely unchallenged. This editors's new pages are verging on being attacked solely because they have been created by the same person each time. There are large gaps in our regimental listings of European armies, which, while needing improvement, these lists can help to fill. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well, but it still doesn't answer my comment. Would you like to try to edit this article then?Sammartinlai (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Meet what standards? It's a perfectly acceptable date. I have also removed some of the strikethroughs, though the notation at the top for their use is quite clear - disbanded by 1815.
 * Comment: No explanation for acceptable date, no clear lead and you did not sign your entry. Sammartinlai (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename List of British Army regiments of the Napoleonic Wars. 1800 is arbitrary. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Renaming is ok but does not solve the issue.Sammartinlai (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What issue? AfD is not cleanup!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't answer if it should go or stay. What does renaming help?Sammartinlai (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems backed up by sources. I think there's some merit to renaming it since it does actually appear directed to regiments of the Napoleonic wars. Notability seems to be there and substantiated - 1800 is during the Napoleonic wars and is used in the source material. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a good article, and cleaned up. Sourcing could be. endless. A truly titantic amount of history has been written about these units. scope_creep (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it cleaned up? It's missing a clear lead, using mainly archives. Explain. Sammartinlai (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2018 (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.