Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Armed Forces uniforms

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Armed Forces uniforms[edit]

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

Do we really need this article? a search for RAF uniform will find the relevant page without the need for this article. This article is an orphan, so nothing links here anyway Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Against - Why not change the page into a disambig? While it is not itself an encyclopedic entry, the pages it links to do have relevence, and anyone searching for "British Armed Forces uniforms" would benefit from a disambig page of this nature, linking to the articles they may be after. (I would also like to point out that people do not only search for RAF uniforms, and there are more military sections under the Mod than the RAF, therefore, the fact that "a search for RAF uniform will find the relevant page..." is not a reason for deletion) m8e39 10:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the nominator's reference to the RAF is what is generally known in the trade as "an example"! It could equally apply to people searching for the uniforms of the other three services. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would imagine that anyone searching on this topic would use the key words "RAF uniform" or "Royal Navy uniform" etc. rather than "British armed forces uniform" so the page is arguably redundant. m8e39 please note that it is not considered good practice to move an article, as you have done to British Armed Forces uniforms (disambiguation), in the course of an AfD discussion. Please see this guideline for more details. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Philg88 I accept that it is arguably redundant, but I think that there would be a percentage of the world who, when looking for British military uniforms, would not necessairaly know that the services have different uniforms from one another, and would search for this article. I'm not arguing to keep the article on the grounds that there are more than the RAF in Britain, I'm arguing to keep it on the grounds that people may genuinely search for this topic to find the pages it links to.
- I cannot, however, give any example of a country where all Armed forces have the same uniform. m8e39 14:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Canada. See Uniforms of the Canadian Forces Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mainly because I'm not seeing a deletion rationale. Deletion isn't about whether we "need it" or whether it's "useful." Maybe I'm overlooking something, but what specifically is the reason? From my point of view, what makes the most sense is to just turn it into the disambiguation page that it is (sans gallery). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usefulness is a valid criterion for disambiguation pages. It's also easy to imagine a non-native English speaker being unaware that the British Navy is the Royal Navy on this Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This is essentially a dab-page. It should certainly not be expanded and may need a tag to discourage that. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2014 (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.