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. Renaming is at editor discretion. RL0919 (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regiment University of the Free State (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)

Lacks all notability. The name "Regiment University of the Free State" (title) or "Regiment University of the Orange Free State" (lead sentence) are never used. The actual name, "Regiment Universiteit Oranje-Vrystaat", is used in very few sources, associated with the military, or without real content[1]. Even in these sources, the info is restricted to one sentence ([2] page 27). Lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. So change it to Regiment Universiteit Oranje-Vrystaat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.209.210 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC) 2. The fact that little is known about a unit doesn't make it irrelevant, it is a open invitation by wikipedians to help investigate and add to the body of knowledge of said unit.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Regiment Universiteit Oranje-Vrystaat. The current title is completely wrong (we don't translate for the sake of it), but major units meet WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how is this all-but-forgotten short-lived reserve unit a "major unit"? And more importantly, since when does an essay trump our notability guidelines? Fram (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Major unit" is a military designation referring to units of battalion or regiment size ("minor units" being company-sized or smaller and "formations" being brigade-sized or above). It has nothing to do with how well-known it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its not an essay. Its an article about a military unit that actually existed Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MILUNIT is an essay, the page up for AFD obviously isn't. But "it existed" is not a sufficient reason to have or keep an article. Fram (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an essay, but is still an accepted notability standard for military articles and has been accepted as such at AfD for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an article that needs improvement, but that is about an actual military unit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does everybody consider "actual military unit" as something that gives automatic notability, exempt from normal sourcing expectations? Fram (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because those of us who know something about military history appreciate that "major units" (see above) should be seen as notable. The article isn't unsourced. Therefore it is presumed notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an utter non-answer. A local consensus / argument fom authority ("those of us who know something about military history") doesn't trump the global consensus of WP:N. "The article isn't unsourced. Therefore it is presumed notable." is making a mockery of what "notable" means on enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourcing [3], while thn, does exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• You basically seem to be arguing that WP:MILUNIT, which has always been held to be relevant at AfD, should be ignored in this case (or maybe all cases) because you don't agree with it. Notability is determined by common sense, precedent and discussion, not strict rules, and yes, that does include the contribution of editors who know what they're talking about. That's why we have AfDs and not just deletion without discussion based on a strict set of criteria. The article is not unsourced. It is about a regiment-sized unit. It should be held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A regiment can be very big or quite small. I think that a military unit made up of students and alumni from a single university would be relatively small, even during wartime. But that's just speculation on my part; if the South African military called it a regiment rather than a ROTC unit, then it’s a regiment. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A regiment in Commonwealth terms (i.e. a battalion equivalent) averages about 500-700 people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with no objection to renaming as suggested by Necrothesp. Notable unit that meets WP:MILUNIT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and concur with possible renaming. Several independent sources exist, and the unit is notable per WP:MILUNIT

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.