Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loamshire Regiment

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 to keep, which should not preclude a subsequent MERGEPROP. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 01:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loamshire Regiment

[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)

undersourced, a WP:BEFORE search turns up little to no reliable results. Could be redirected to [[List of fictional regiments of the British Army ]], but I can hardly find an indication its real, much less that it meets WP:GNG Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of fictional regiments of the British Army. It's definitely been used to refer to several fictional regiments, but the name itself is not notable enough to warrant its own article.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It clearly is in use as a placeholder name in British Army manuals etc, just as the article claims [1][2][3]. Use of it as an example to explain the structure of the British Army [4][5]. Use in comedy or satire [6][7][8]. Use in fiction [9][10], and this one means that either the Loamshires did once exist, or that (more likely) the author does not want to name the real regiment involved. SpinningSpark 11:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it didn't exist, but that no sources talk about it as being a placeholder name besides using it as a placeholder name, and that there's no indication there's enough to make a standalone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Through the Lens of the Reader which devotes a few sentences to its use in Middlemarch; "Loamshire, not an existent English county, offers a legible clue to the figurative import of these invented names. The transparently symbolical nomenclature, ..." This from War, Literature and the Arts, likewise, discusses Evelyn Waugh's use of the term. There is also this page which spends a paragraph explaining the term in a footnote to its use in a poem. The latter one is not a strongly RS source but does give a good account of the British Army usage. I know that's not a great deal, but I feel it in my water that Wikipedia ought to have an article on something like this. People may still be interested in it a hundred years from now, which is more than can be said for most of the bios that come up here. SpinningSpark 17:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (second choice: merge to List of fictional regiments of the British Army). For me this is right on the borderline of what would be enough material for a standalone article so as not to overwhelm the list. Spinningspark's comment above though suggests that there is more that can be said. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, as per Thryduulf. Rosario (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2018 (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.