Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Militia

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. Consensus is that the Canadian Militia do meet the notability guidelines for inclusion of military units in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Militia

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MILUNIT. (MILUNIT applies to "National armed forces or branches thereof" and I don't think local volunteer forces qualify as a branch of a national military.) The useful content already exists at the articles about the active militias. Most of the online hits about this subject are from mirrors of Wikipedia. This article has been unsourced since 2009, which I take as evidence that no one has information on the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly does pass WP:MILUNIT, as part of the Canadian armed forces. A useful page which links to and distinguishes the different types of militia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was the top level Canadian army formation from 1867 until 1940. Sourcing should be improved. Deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of the Canadian Army--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, per WP:MILUNIT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of reliable sources can be found by simply clicking on the spoon-fed "books" and "scholar" links above. This nomination is a clear failure of WP:BEFORE, in which the nominator failed to take a few seconds to check for potential sources but preferred to waste far more of other editors' time. Such selfishness goes against the sprit of collaboration that we are supposed to have here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2017 (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.