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. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Army Regiments (2008)[edit]

List of British Army Regiments (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has states the year 2008 and the lead says it is a result of two white papers from 2004 and 2008. It is extremely curious to have a whole list of British Army regiments with hardly any inline references to the years 2004, 2005 and how they link to year 2008. There was no significant Army or wider Defence review close to 2008. These Template:UK Defence Review were the major British Defence reviews and none of them match year 2008. It fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPIP. It was deleted as a WP:PROD yet reverted for no reason. Page should therefore be deleted or merged into pages or articles like Units of the British Army. BlueD954 (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It needs to be better sourced and repurposed to cover the organisation immediately after the reviews, but it is a perfectly valid article as a list of units after a major reorganisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "They deleted my PROD" is not a DELREASON - and just goes to show how people are being trigger-happy with PROD and using it for controversial/improvable articles. WP:SPIP is against self-promotion? Why is this being cited here? Saying this fails WP:GNG fails on the obvious referencing provided in the article which provides a force structure for the British army as a result of the review. Additional sources are available also (e.g., "The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, 2007–2008", "The British Army, 2008–2009: A Pocket Guide") and failing to consider this also shows a potential WP:BEFORE fail. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Always a love to keep but no one has improve these unsourced articles, no states why 2008 is so important, article only improved by blocked users or users who left Wikipedia. BlueD954 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would prefer not to see a proliferation of orbats. Dormskirk (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – As above. Also, there is a list of regiments after each major reform: 1881, 1967, etc; the reason this is 2008, instead of 2003 when the Defence Review was written is because the re-organisation wasn't completed until 2008. SmartyPants22 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unreferenced and no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The idea there's no notability for this seems absurd as there are numerous sources available including The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, 2007–2008 and Encyclopedia of Modern British Army Regiments. The latter work has timelines and trees showing the way in which the regiments have been merged and renamed over the years and there's a clearly a need for something of this sort. The article in question is a snapshot and that's a reasonable approach. AfD is not a suitable place to second-guess this per WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since some users refuse to keep 1989 military listings on wikipedia, there is no reason to keep unremarkable 2008 listings. Add a few lines to Delivering Security in a Changing World and delete this one. noclador (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the reasons for the three 1989 listings being deleted are that, according to the nominators at those AfDs, that there are not multiple, independent, and reliable sources available, for those forces, for that year. There are, as per Andrew Davidson, readily available such sources for this army, for this period. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, as proved by multiple, independent, and reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.