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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swedish logistic regiments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This entry, which was edited 2 years ago and never changed so far, does not bring forward any information to the reader. It is confusing, consists mostly of Swedish names, and no Wikipedia entries for the listed entries exist, either. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Regiments are generally considered notable units, and a listing of regiments, grouping several, would be more notable still. When we get more Swedish speakers along we'll no doubt get this translated and expanded. Deleting this now would just be an example of our Anglo systematic bias. Buckshot06(prof) 21:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Buckshot. This is a perfectly valid topic for a list and there's no reason to delete it. The reason the names of the units are in Swedish are because they're part of the Swedish Army. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep the nominator gives no compelling reason why this article should be deleted. Following his current argumentation more articles in the List of Swedish regiments must be deleted, which I think would be wrong. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I feel that the article is a valid topic and I don't feel that the large number of redlinks should be its downfall. Indeed, having this article might encourage some Swedish readers to write those articles, which would be as notable as any Australian, British and US regiment (provided the sources exist, of course). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm 105% sure the sources exist - mostly in Swedish-language hardcopy books. As well as Anglo bias, this is an example of our overreliance on web sources bias. Buckshot06(prof) 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes it's in sore need of editing and improvement, but please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion and the boldface statement If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Tomas e (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (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.