Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Territorial Army units (2012)

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.

List of Territorial Army units (2012)

List of Territorial Army units (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article sates List of Territorial Units in 2012. But by 2012, there was no more TA but the Army Reserve. Why do we need a list of units in a specific year? The article is totally unreferenced and not up to Wikipedia standards. It does not meet

• Delete largely unsourced and no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Actually the TA was renamed the Army Reserve in 2014. It needs to be repurposed as a list of TA units before the reforms and better sourced, but it is a valid article as a final list of TA units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Which source states the date the TA was renamed the Army Reserve? You made no effort to improve a vast unreferenced list. Why is such a list verified and notable?BlueD954. (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defence Reform Act 2014. Per
    WP:GNG is ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • What is ludicrous is you calling this a structure. It's a list of units with no references BlueD954 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is a list of units with their subunits not a structure? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See why this PROD was deleted. BlueD954 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had I spotted it in time I would have deprodded that too. And I've now restored it. But it's not in the slightest relevant to an AfD in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a valid list and the links provide citing. It needs some clean up, but should be kept. Kierzek (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp and
  WP:NNC. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • As has been explained before:
    Fram (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete unless reliable, independent sources are provided. At the moment, this lacks all notability.
  Fram (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I had a quick look on GBooks. References can be found e.g., 1, 2, 3. This is a pss for

WP:NEXIST. FOARP (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

That first one, fine, but the second one are truly passing mentions, and the third one contradicts our own article on many points, making it rather unclear if it really is a reliable source.

Fram (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I would prefer not to see a proliferation of orbats. Dormskirk (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but so long as the OOBs are kept to those following major changes in organisation, then this would seem kosher. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Apart from the one book above, this appears to fail
  WP:LISTN as it hasn't really been discussed in RS. SportingFlyer T·C 13:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: per Mztourist.Leahjstaples1234 (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp. jp×g 12:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:per SportingFlyer.Aielen85 (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As the discussion above highlights, there seems very little basis for this list in
  WP:RS. I have yet to see an argument about why 2012 is particularly justifiable compared with, say, 2011 or 2013. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, a collection of cruft that fails
  WP:LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This appears to be exactly what I would look for in a list. Great wikilinking to other articles I may be interested in, and as a list, I would expect to find the supporting sources in maybe just 1 or 2 places - which is certainly the case here. Notability certainly isn't a factor for me on a list of this nature and size. Same argument as for 2 other lists nominated for AfD - which leads me to add the argument that these British Army-related lists should be kept as a unit.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's easy to find sources for this such as The British Army Guide 2012 - 2013. Passes
  WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Article meets
  WP:AOAL for keeping a list. Per CLN "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks".   // Timothy :: talk  17:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: per Nom and the the flawed rationale of
  WP:CLN (#5) gives disadvantages of having such a list ...entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia., and sourcing that advances notability is the main issue. Otr500 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Otr500 is quite mistaken. The British Army Guide 2012 - 2013 is not a
  primary source – not even close, as it is a compendious reference work. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Reply: It seems Andrew Davidson is correct that the source is not primary apparently drawing on primary sources ("The information in this publication has been gathered from unclassified sources") and does not offer anything more than a listing. According to the site it is listed as "The Defence Suppliers Directory" with the further, "The Defence Suppliers Directory has become a Global Marketplace for customers seeking Defence related products." This makes it appear as a vendors list so I still question that copying the list is an acceptable source to advance inclusion notability for an article. I also still don't see the relevance of one particular year over any other as particularly notable when the content can be part of an updated article. Otr500 (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Yet another list of military units in an arbitrary year with extremely inadequate sourcing. Let's look at the references. TA Units - British Army Website Archived 2013-05-17 at the Wayback Machine is a broken link, supposedly archived at the Wayback Machine but with no link to the archived version. Queen's Regulations, March 2009 is a 354-page document, whose pages bear a variety of dates, but it's not clear what fact it's being cited to support nor where that fact would appear in the document. "Territorial Army Bands (TA)". is cited to support the statement, "There are currently 20 Army Reserve bands located across the UK with one in Gibraltar", but I don't see any reference to 20 Army Reserve bands on that page nor to one being in Gibraltar. TAQ (12 ed.). MoD. June 2011. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) is cited as a reference to a journal but with no article title or page number -- and, for that matter, I don't see any journal named TAQ listed in the British Library catalogue. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 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.