Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/321 Medium Regiment (India)

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. At first blush, it would appear that views are evenly split. Closer inspection reveals that the Delete views are anchored in guidelines, while the Keep ones are of the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:NEXIST type, without providing any sources. We all recognize the impact of WP:BIAS when it comes to non-Western topics, and are willing to lower the notability threshold accordingly. But we can't lower this threshold to zero. This deletion is without prejudice against an early REFUND if even a single SIGCOV source is found. Owen× ☎ 18:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

321 Medium Regiment (India)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Reviewed under NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. I'm normally pretty lenient on military unit articles because they tend to be very enclyclopedic but IMO this one is pretty far out there. Content is basically just "it exists" plus a note of participation sourced to a Twitter/X page. Other than the Twitter/X page one is just a government gazette to support a "mentioned in a dispatch" statement and a stamp page to support a gun type and founding date sentence. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. The page is self opinionated. It does not draw any parallels from the reliable sources, forget even having any on the page. There is no background or history about the Regiment. Can't rely on Twitter accounts. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent any reliable sources (a check on English Google Books had zero hits) and not even anything reliable on the web. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think Google Books is a good place to check notability of an Indian military unit? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have generally considered major units to be notable. Probably because they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the person who has created the article, my views are that - The concerns from North8000 are valid. Data regarding military units are sometimes very difficult to come by. A google search regarding this unit will come up with nothing, except for the Wikipedia page. Once more data comes into the public domain, the article can be expanded. Akk7a (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m not convinced that more exhaustive searches wouldn’t demonstrate notability. For example, there are a lot of regional/local newspapers in India and a lot of them aren’t indexed or even on the web.

That said, the article is rather stubby compared to other “Regiments” (battalions) of the Indian Artillery.

But I think the best course of action would be to let it sit for months to years and see if it gets expanded.

I strongly suspect this is a case of non-searchable SIGCOV being assumed not to exist i.e. WP:BIAS. Indian Army units don’t have the same Web footprint as American or British ones. Just how it is.

10:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2024 (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.