Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry

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. The subject should be rewritten, but there is a clear consensus to keep this article. Nower603 (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry[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)

Copied from a public-domain source. Clearly not an encyclopedia article in its current form (WP:DEL14) - there are details of recruitment but no claims of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree with the deletion proposal, but want to note there's probably a way to build an article around this topic. Read as a "don't keep in current form." SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Keep article has been much improved. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On reading through the article I can't see anything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Of course it should have a lead section and internal links and otherwise have stylistic changes made to it, but I really can't see any reason why those improvements can't be made without deleting this, and why the current article doesn't serve readers better than nothing, which is what we would have if this was deleted. WP:MILUNIT suggests that we usually have articles about regiments. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could format this, copy edit this, and add a couple additional sources, we'd have an article. Maybe draftify? SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree with this "if in doubt, draftify" idea that seems to have taken hold here. If we draftify it then nobody will see it and improve it, and it will be deleted under WP:G13 in six months. Now that the article is at AfD we should take a decision now, rather than just kick it down the road. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don´t you think you´re a little overzealous with your copyright-paranoia? The article has been created just yesterday, give the creator some time to work. Seriously. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable regiment per WP:MILUNIT with substantial combat service. Kges1901 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:MILUNIT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.