Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cadet units in British Columbia


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

List of cadet units in British Columbia

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MILMOS/N Anotherclown (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Anotherclown (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the fence: I'm divided on this one, which is why I contested the prod (hoping to hear some more discussion). On one hand, none of the individual units have an article and mostly don't seem to have any independant notability. On the other, there is no policy saying that a list has to be a stand-alone list. At least one person thought there was enough potential to make lists for the other provinces; but I would be OK with upmerging the scope to all of Canada and maybe being a bit more stringent about criteria.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't think it meets the sourcing requirements in WP:N for significant, independent coverage. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable per WP:MILMOS/N. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The units as a whole are large enough to satisfy WP:MILMOS/N. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand this assertion as the MILMOS doesn't seem to cover cadet units at all (as far as I can see). Anotherclown (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to draw a distinction between cadet units and other types of military unit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not (personnally I think the notability threshold for a cadet unit would be different from an actual military unit as the vast majority would be non-notable and lack reliable sources or significant independant coverage). I guess in many ways this argument probably transends the issues involved in this article and maybe further discussion of the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N might be needed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not like we have an article on every unit. But we do have ones like List of Army Cadet Units across Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess thats part of the problem... personnally I don't think cadet units are all that notable, so having a list that focuses on purely those units in one part of Canada (i.e. British Columbia) seems even less notable to me. Perhaps if it were a list of all Cadet units in Canada it might be more notable. Then again if there is no reliable sources and no independent coverage it is a moot point as that then fails our notablity guidelines anyway (or at least thats my interpretation). IMO both List of cadet units in British Columbia and List of Army Cadet Units across Australia fall into this category. Anotherclown (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but being of little interest to you does not automatically make the subject not notable. The idea of a Canada-wide article may be reasonable, but Canada is larger than Australia, and it might become unwieldy. I see no problem in listing them on a per-state basis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean provinces, right? :P I'd like to point out that the notability requirements to be included on a list is not the same as needed to have an article, so referencing WP:MILMOS/N is a bit disingenuous because it is written with articles in mind.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough - that doesn't remove the requirement for reliable sources and significant independent coverage, which at this stage I don't believe this article has. Anotherclown (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2010 (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.