Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Regular Army regiments (1994)


 * 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. It needs to be better sourced as a keep argument is not persuasive when there is clear evidence that the sourcing is inafequate. Spartaz Humbug! 20:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

List of British Regular Army regiments (1994)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The lead reads "This is a list of British Regular Army regiments in the after the defence cuts of the Options for Change defence white paper in 1991." But that is a three-year gap. There are no references here at all to prove these units were formed after the Options for Change White Paper. Basically this is a directory and nears WP:ARTN. Unless you can prove the units below existed due to the Options for Change White Paper within three years the article can be kept. The article fails WP:ARTN and WP:GNG. BlueD954 (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced and no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. It needs to be better sourced and repurposed to cover the organisation immediately after Options for Change, but it is a perfectly valid article as a list of units after a major reorganisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither of you address the issue. All you want is to see an unsourced list that make no linkage. Given evidence how the list of units were formed three years after the Options for change. BlueD954 (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does it say the units were formed three years after Options for Change? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And see WP:SALAT and 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) 14:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is ludicrous is you calling this a structure. It's a list of units with no references BlueD954 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp and NNC. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely unsourced, lacks all evidence of notability. WP:NNC is never a reason to keep a list, it is an argument about entries within a list only. The overall subject of the list needs to be notable, entries in the list don't. As for WP:SALAT, scroll down to the subsection "Citing sources": "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources." SALAT (and NNC) don't mean that lists don't have to meet the GNG. Fram (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would prefer not to see a proliferation of orbats. Dormskirk (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've rewritten the lede as coming from "the post-Cold War restructuring resulting from the Options for Change defence white paper 1991." which explains the context better.
 * Delete Completely unsourced list with no evidence of notability, fails WP:LISTN. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:00, 16 November 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.