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. Consensus is that this content is unsourced and inaccurate. Therefore removing it is fully consistent with wikipedia policy but there is a clear need for a sourced accurate article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Αdding after to clarify, this is essentially a TNT case.Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire[edit]

Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a fake entry created from a FANDOM page as admitted by the user. Sammartinlai (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sammartinlai (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the FANDOM page, I'm just transferring it to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Man11 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Fandom and wikipedia are different. Please read up what Wikipedia is about. Are you voting btw?Sammartinlai (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JMan-11, please read [[1]] before you create further articles.Sammartinlai (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. No valid rationale for deletion offered. Previously being posted on Wikia is not grounds for deletion per se, and certainly does not mean it is fake. SpinningSpark 11:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The entry is a list of unsourced--one unreliable or questionable source--of units only for the author's sake, not for the role of Wikipedia. If you argue for wikia articles into wikipedia, then that should be made en masse. Sammartinlai (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use strawman arguments. Of course I am not proposing mass incorporation of Wikia pages. Are you now trying to argue the subject is not notable? SpinningSpark 12:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user is just mass copying his FANDOM article over and yes you can see how it is not notable. Perhaps you could edit it if you think it should be kept? Show me how it is notable and worthy.Sammartinlai (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book Citizen Soldiers and the British Empire, 1837–1902 is entirely about precisely this subject. The Irish Amateur Military Tradition in the British Army, 1854-1992 is entirely about the Irish component of this topic. The opening sentence of the book reads "The study of the auxiliary forces of the United Kingdom is an important one..." You really need to separate the issue of the notability of the topic and the origin of the article on FANDOM in your head. They are two separate issues. SpinningSpark 15:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't insult my head. The user who created the article admitted it was copy and paste from FANDOM. Why don't you fix the article since you have the book? Sammartinlai (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost completely unsourced. So fails WP:CITE and WP:RS. Dormskirk (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Was invited to comment. My observations:

• I think there is a place for this type of information on WP, and in fact much of this information is already included in the article List of units of the British Army Territorial Force 1908. For that reason I would suggest this article should be deleted or merged;
• If this article is kept, its title should reflect that it is a list;
• Based on a cursory scan, the article seems to be misleading/inaccurate, but not what I would characterise as fiction. I do agree it is poorly sourced, though I don't think that's a good reason in itself for deletion. There are good sources available; the above-mentioned article lists some in its bibliography. I would also add that the archive of regiments.org was accepted as reliable in Gloucestershire Regiment when it was promoted to FA. However, referencing only the index page instead of each individual entry in the list is not enough. I'm not sure that british-army-units1945on.co.uk can be considered a reliable source. If it is, then again, it's not enough just to reference an index page.
• In terms of the article being misleading/inaccurate. Taking just the Gloucestershire entries as an example:

• It's not clear that C (Royal Gloucestershire Hussars) Squadron, The Royal Wessex Yeomanry, is the modern day descendent of the former yeomanry regiment the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars.
• The same issue exists with the Gloucestershire Volunteer Artillery which, according to the WP article on that unit, has a longer history of different unit names than is presented in this list. And Royal Foot Artillery? I think that should be Royal Field Artillery;
• The Gloucestershire Regiment was neither militia nor yeomanry, but a regular army regiment, and therefore has no place at all in this list;
• I never encountered the Royal North Gloucestershire Light Infantry in my research for Gloucestershire Regiment, only the Royal North Gloucestershire Militia;
• The two rifle volunteer units listed were neither militia nor yeomanry, but part of the Volunteer Force, a completely separate organisation;
• The article omits any mention of the third rifle volunteer battalion, raised in 1900. Factotem (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the Gloucestershire Regiment wasn't a militia regiment, but it did have militia battalions after 1881, as did all regular infantry regiments. I assume that's what the author was getting at, which is why they've added the regular regiment to every county list. Yes, I agree that's fairly pointless without specifying the battalions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the page includes wrong information is purely a page quality issue, not a deletion issue. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sourcing on the page is a page quality issue and doesn't matter for AfD purposes. Whether or not the page began on Wikia also doesn't matter. What matters is whether sources showing "significant coverage" exist, and as can be seen above, they do. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Superfluous addition to the better sourced List of units of the British Army Territorial Force 1908 as per above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just a snapshot in time. This article has the potential to be expanded with descriptive prose. It's certainly a notable subject on which a great deal has been written. Notability should not be judged on the current poor state, but what the article could become. SpinningSpark 13:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FOARP - we can clean this article up, separately from the deletion debate. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FOARP and Buckshot06. - wolf 08:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The topic certainly seems notable. The current name is somewhat misleading - 1) it's a list, not an article, and 2) it says "Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire", but does not currently include any militia outside England and the Channel Islands (and only half of England, at that). It would be more useful with dates, too, of when each militia was first raised and, if applicable, when any were disbanded or merged. So while a list and/or article on this topic could have a place in Wikipedia, and this version could be improved, if this is deleted, a new article or list could be written. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.. WP:V is mandatory. The only source is a self-published website (WP:SPS). This is unverifiable content. Sandstein 20:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Additional to my post above, I'm curious to know if there are any sources that cover only the Militia and the Yeomanry, in the way this article's title suggests. I've seen a few that cover one or the other, and I've seen a few that cover auxiliary forces in general (of which the Militia and Yeomanry were just two of a number of amateur forces raised at various times in British and, before that, English, Scottish and Irish military history), but I'm not aware of any that are constrained to just these two institutions. If this article is retained, then as well the current poor state of sourcing, I think the scope of the article, and therefore the title, will need some attention. Factotem (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on many grounds: (A) The subject of the contested article is "militia and yeomanry," specifically in Great Britain. Yet nowhere do we learn anything about militia and yeomanry in Britain, e.g. the social context, the historical development, etc. (B) This is a list and nothing more than a list. As a list, it lacks encyclopaedic interest, though it could fit as a trimmed, hatted section into an article that would actually be about militia and yeomanry in Britain. (C) There are no significant references supporting the subject's independent notability. The term "amateur soldier" denotes something different than "yeoman" and "yeomanry;" a yeoman is a member of social class historically. Sources about, generally, amateur soldiers are not directly relevant. (D) Although, as we know, deletion is no replacement for improvement, in this case the only and most merciful way forward is to send the text back to draft land and await whatever improvements can be made to it, starting perhaps with its title, before it's acceptable as a Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2018 (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.