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 merge to Mounted Carabiniers (France). The arguments against keeping are stronger. The first "keep" argues that certain military units are inherently notable, which is contrary to applicable guidelines. The second "keep" argues that there are sources, but does not react to questions about the pertinence of these sources. Sandstein 07:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG. I'm only able to find one secondary source that mentions the 1st Carabinier Regiment, which is just a Daily Mail article about a piece of scratched armor belonging to a soldier of this regiment. BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might help to search for the correct French spelling, which is régiment de carabiniers. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked over in Gallica at BNF.fr for "1er régiment de carabiniers"; there are hits for several units, not sure how detailed each is. Napoleonic cavalry units are not my area of study. The unit exists, it would take a bit of digging to make an article. The Fr wiki article is about as poorly-sourced as this one is. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always considered that battalion-sized units and above are notable. This is WP:COMMONSENSE and its principle is laid down at WP:MILUNIT. There are easily enough sources to prove that this regiment existed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks. I was unaware of that WP:MILUNIT. Two questions-- first of all, how do I withdraw an AFD? Second, is there an available list of notability guidelines for specific subjects? BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MILUNIT is a Wikiproject essay not a guideline. The actual guidelines are on Template:Notability guide. There is no basis for automatic notability for all such organizational units of any military. They are not exempt from our standard expections of significant coverage. Reywas92Talk 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92 unless actual useful sources can be identified. The previous AfD 5+ years ago essentially turned around a "well surely there are sources if someone would just look for them" argument. Given that those sources have not materialized in 5+ years, we must assume they don't exist. Any arguments to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not convincing. As for WP:MILUNIT, it is an essay that explicitly states "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline" and "[The] presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I'll gladly change my !vote if someone can actually identify the sources needed to establish WP:SIGCOV, but vague claims along the lines of "French Napoleonic regiments will undoubtedly have sources" (as in the last AfD) will not cut it. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not going to give a full review yet, but I'm starting to lean keep. There were only two regiments, and the premier régiment de carabiniers fought at Austerlitz, Friedland, Eckmühl, Wagram and Waterloo, which by itself should warrant at least some attention from military historians. I looked around a bit, and sources abound: 1814 [1], 1877 [2] (digitized), 1896 [pp.155-189], and going forward. I'm fairly sure that they also get coverage in English-language military history books, if one were to look. Pilaz (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are secondary sources, contemporary and modern. Emir Bukhari's Napoleon's Cuirassiers and Carabiniers and Ronald Pawly's Napoleon’s Carabiniers are just two of the sources in English. Atchom (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atchom: could you describe what those sources say about the 1st Carabinier Regiment in specific? Based on Amazon previews, both appear to very short books (<50 pages). A Google Books search of Napoleon's Carabiniers for the keyword "1st" produces only rather passing mentions such as "the 2nd Cavalry Corps was deployed in column of regiments, with 1st Carabiniers in front." and "The 1st Regt suffered severe casualties (12 officers and 104 troopers); the 2nd Regt...". Similarly, looking at the index of Napoleon's Cuirassiers and Carabiniers in Amazon (assuming I'm interpreting the Index correctly), it seems that the 1st in specific is only indexed to images rather than text. I'm sure these would be wonderful sources for an article about the carabiniers in general, but this discussion is about whether the 1st regiment in specific should be a separate, dedicated, article. -Ljleppan (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2022 (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.
