Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tercio "Gran Capitán" No. 1 of the Legion


 * 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. in lieu of a formal keep since there are valid concerns about the policy basis of Kges1901's keep. That said, there's no large argument to delete being made either and it does not appear further input is forthcoming. Star  Mississippi  01:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Tercio "Gran Capitán" No. 1 of the Legion

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unsourced from inception; tagged for notability since 2019. A tercio seems to be the equivalent of a regiment, for clarity's sake. I could only find three sources, two of which are not independent of the subject, and the latter of which is not significant. The third is this, which, despite the headline, does not contain much information about the article subject itself. I'd argue that this needs at least two non-defensa sources for this to meet WP:GNG Iseult   Δx parlez moi 18:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This unit is the descendent of the Spanish Legion units that saw significant action in the Rif War and were a major element in the Fascist victory in the Spanish Civil War, where their role is detailed in the independent RS books by José E. Alvarez' The Betrothed of Death (ABC-CLIO) and The Spanish Foreign Legion in the Spanish Civil War, 1936 (University of Missouri Press). A quick Google books search brings up pages of books in Spanish, including a history of the Spanish Foreign Legion that has detailed coverage of the unit's history after the Spanish Civil War. Kges1901 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * wouldn't that be then inherited notability, which goes against policy? Iseult   Δx parlez moi 04:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because in military unit articles it is normal to cover the history of the predecessors of a currently active military unit in the same article. For example, a currently active unit like this that hasn't seen combat that would generate major coverage in a while would be covered along with the history of its predecessors. Kges1901 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I understand why some common practice would take precedence over WP:INHERITORG. One is precedent, whereas the other is actual site policy. If the unit's predecessor is notable, the predecessor should have its own article. If the unit itself is not, then it should not. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 01:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because when a military unit changes its name it does not become a different unit. This is a standard in military history. That's why military units take over the history of their predecessors. But in any case, per the long-accepted WP:MILUNIT, units of this size are generally considered to be notable for very good reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First, that's an essay from a WikiProject, not policy; can you provide policy citations regarding size notability? Second, if it doesn't itself become a different unit but is only notable for its actions under the original name more than half a century ago, wouldn't the baseline be not to keep but to redirect? Iseult   Δx parlez moi 03:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an essay, but it's a widely accepted one written by people who know what they're talking about for good reasons. And why is the fact its most notable actions were more than 50 years ago relevant? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Would appear to meet WP:GNG. But a rename would probably be a good idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.