Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Army Reserve Units (2020)


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

List of British Army Reserve Units (2020)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:SNG and WP:ARTN and why do we need a list of units? Totally unreferenced and created by a blocked user BlueD954 (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete largely unsourced and no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. It needs to be better sourced and renamed (removing the "2020"), but it is a perfectly valid article as a list of current Army Reserve units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Keep for what? You made no effort to address the issues. BlueD954 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You ask why we are keeping an encyclopaedic list on an encyclopaedia? See WP:NNC. Yes, it needs better sourcing, but claiming that the structure of the British Army does not meet WP:GNG is ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp and WP:NNC. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:NNC is not an argument to keep a list, it is an argument to keep entries within a list. Please stop repeating this as if it has any bearing on these AfDs. Fram (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. See why this PROD was deleted. BlueD954 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Had I spotted it in time I would have deprodded that too. And I've now restored it. But it's not in the slightest relevant to an AfD in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, no independent sourcing, lacks notability. Fram (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - as I have repeatedly shown below, these units are attributed in multiple, independent, reliable sources. AfD is not cleanup. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As has been repeatedly explained to you, you need sources for the list topic, not for individual entries, to show that the list is about a notable topic. And as has been repeatedly said, you need to provide better sources; the first one you add is for the Honourable Artillery Company, where you start with this, which is their homepage. Nope, not independent at all, obviously. So why bother listing it, if not for reference padding, for showing "look how many references there are"? I'm not going to wade through that list of references if this is what you present (second source; an army website, again not independent; then don't bother including it here.) None of the other HAC sources do anything at all to make "list of British Army Reserve Units (2020)" a notable subject. The sources in your next bullet point aren't any better, something like this is not giving any notability to this list, nor even to the RMRE. You include LinkedIn, for crying out loud. It's a laundry list of everything you could find, no matter if it was relevant, reliable, independent, ... No thanks, don't bother, it's desperate instead of convincing. Fram (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your feelings on this issue are leading you to make incorrect statements. The subject of this list is 2020; this means that citing all the independent sources - yes, including LinkedIn, that shows it's current this year - validate that the units exist - though you incorrectly say they're passing mentions, some are specifically on the units concerned. The point is that all the association and other sources prove the units existed in the last twelve or so months (and the Army sites back that up, which is why I also noted their existence). That was my objective. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone doubted there existence, which isn't the reason this one is up for deletion or why I voted "delete". The lack of notability is not solved by primary sources, Linkedin, or passing mentions. Feel free to repost a heavily pruned list of sources which actually do show notability, as the ones I checked from yor list fell way short of that mark. Fram (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would prefer not to see a proliferation of orbats. Dormskirk (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not keen on the idea of having lists of military units with arbitrary dates, but this is a list of current units, which has obvious encyclopedic and navigational value. It's not "Totally unreferenced", and even if it was that wouldn't be much of a reason to delete it given that sources will be easily available. The fact that it was created by a blocked user doesn't mean it should be deleted unless it has no significant contributions from other people. I should point out that WP:LISTN says  Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, so that isn't necessarily a valid argument either.  Hut 8.5  18:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments Is there a reason that Units of the British Army, that includes reserves, couldn't be updated? Otr500 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, so there is no need for this page. Mztourist (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is far more detailed than that one so what you're suggesting is a merge rather than deletion. The destination article is getting rather long so it may still be a good idea to have a separate article.  Hut 8.5  09:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mztourist. Leahjstaples1234 (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) — Leahjstaples1234 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - all the entries on this list meet the threshold of multiple, independent, and reliable sources being available, and thus they meet the WP:GNG (as also per Necrothesp). Buckshot06 (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No they do not.BlueD954 (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I truly think your statement is incorrect. Let's take a sample unit, the Honourable Artillery Company. It's a semi-autonomous, not quite part of the British Army given its history (chartered in 1587), so it has a completely current separate website, at https://hac.org.uk/. Then it has the Army site at https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/6th-united-kingdom-division/1st-intelligence-surveillance-and-reconnaissance-brigade/honourable-artillery-company/. Then for example mention; joins AEV Members of the Honourable Artillery Company fire a 62-round royal gun salute from outside the Tower of London to mark Queen Elizabeth II's 68th anniversary of accession to the throne in London https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2020/03/whisky-live-london-postponed-due-to-coronavirus/
 * Just in case the point needs to be made at the article, I will add all those references there. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's take another unit, say the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers (Militia). They too have a website separate from the Army site, at https://rmonrem.com/. Also Remembrance Day marathon raises funds for veteran's mental health charity; I'm a Celebrity: Ruined Gwent castles where ITV show could take place; Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to visit Jersey for Liberation 75 celebrations.
 * This was literally a five-minute scribble through the instantly available British local news sites. Apart from the Army and/or unit separate website if it has one, there's lots and lots of occasions when a Army Reserve unit is mentioned for all kinds of reasons. Their existence is verifiable, without even going to the hardcopy which might be available to UK residents. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also just added several news stories for 7th Battalion, The Rifles, which can be seen at the article, as further evidence that, notwithstanding any hardcopy sources, these units are mentioned in local news relatively frequently, and thus completely verifiable. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's give another example, 154 (Scottish) Regiment RLC, Royal Logistic Corps. It has an Army current site at ; 154 Regiment Facebook; and Twitter, semi-independent hosted on social media; then the RLC Association, the corps 'trade union'; students in UK serving with it on LinkedIn; a current transport directions reference; 221 Squadron of the regiment in a business directory; and then, after that, the local news stories: Forces.net Exercise Mudmaster; Soldier raises thousands for charity (Greenock Telegraph); Coronavirus: Leuchars soldiers on standby to help with Covid-19 response as Fife field hospital rumours quashed.
 * I will add these links to the 154 Regiment entry.
 * Regarding 207 (Manchester) Field Hospital RAMC, there's the official Army site; Newsletter; semi-independent reserve Recruiting Facebook page; and Twitter feed; Govserv.org; Armed forces nurse celebrated for efforts on coronavirus frontline (Bury Times); Manchester Will Commemorate The Fallen At The City’s Annual Remembrance Sunday Service; Liverpool City Region COVID19 Updates... and Important Emergency Notices ... Buckshot06 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To claim that these units are not covered in independent, multiple, and reliable sources is simply bordering on silliness. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To call me silly? Go away.BlueD954 (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - this appears to be exactly what I would look for in a list. Great wikilinking to other articles I may be interested in, and as a list, I would expect to find the supporting sources in maybe just 1 or 2 places - which is certainly the case here. Notability certainly isn't a factor for me on a list of this nature and size.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep In agreement with Concertmusic and Buckshot06. Subject is notable, entries in the list are notable, list is useful. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:17, 2 December 2020 (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.