Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st Infantry Division (France)

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. Star Mississippi 15:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1st Infantry Division (France)[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)

Either doesn't meet notability guidelines or is a hoax. The article is translated from frwiki, which cites 5 sources, only 2 of which even mention the division (the third and fourth for any curious editors). Furthermore, the sources section in the enwiki article only says "this article is translated from French Wikipedia", which makes me further question the authenticity of the article. Either way, I wouldn't blame the author of the article, but it's quite suspicious nevertheless and that's why I'm putting this up for debate. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 16:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and France. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 16:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously? The division existed and is notable. See Rearming the French, pp. 343, 349, 353, 358-359, 364 and 390. Start by reading through that book. The French version of the article supplies good French sources, including Stephane Weiss's «Le jour d'après» : Organisations et projets militaires dans la France libérée Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book you mentioned as a "good French source" does not mention the 1st Infantry Division at all (I checked while making this entry yesterday). Although I do have to agree that the unit is not a hoax, its notability is questionable when you still can find just 3 sources, most of which only mention the 1st Infantry a few times. I'm certain that these are only mentions scattered across WW2-related sources and not, as notability guidelines state, significant coverage. Thank you for reading, Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 17:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, Seriously?! A division is not notable? Please! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a division so special? What makes a division transcend notability guidelines, even if you have barely any sources to support an article about it? Explain to me sir. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 19:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it's a major military formation consisting of thousands of men? Seriously, any military historian would laugh this out of AfD. Take a look at WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the article is literally about a notable unit. Why is this being written this way [its not even a hoax, so I would argue your AfD is based on a false source]. I read a small bit of french but this is a bad idea Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2022 (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.