From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. It's not clear why this was at AfD. The nomination suggested a merge, not deletion; such decisions don't need the heavyweight AfD process.

In any case, I don't see any clear consensus on whether to keep this as a stand-alone article or merge it into 153rd Cavalry Regiment. There's reasonable arguments made on both sides, and I don't see any killer arguments, nor any overwhelming numerical superiority (not that this is supposed to be a vote count anyway) on either side. So, calling this NC, and people can continue to discuss this on the article talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Franklin Guards

Franklin Guards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a company-level sub-unit that is not independently notable as most sources are primary. Doesn't meet WP:MILUNIT as below battalion level. Merge relevant details then redirect to its current parent formation, 153rd Cavalry Regiment. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Note that despite the seemingly long list of references - only two are secondary - "Sheppard, Jonathan C. "Everyday Soldiers": The Florida Brigade of the West, 1861-1862, Florida State University: 2004. " which is a master's thesis (not generally used as a source on Wikipedia), and "Soldiers of Florida in the Seminole Indian-Civil and Spanish-American Wars. Live Oak, Florida: Democrat Print." (a 1903 book - not sure of RSness). All the rest are PRIMARY sources (annual reports of the Adjutant General, Flordia state assembly documents). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. as I agree with much of what the Peacemaker67 has said, and Icewhiz's comments. I think we should be reasonably generous with the amount we merge though, there is alot of information here. Dysklyver 09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - I agree as well, and don't have a strong opinion about how much to merge. Smmurphy( Talk) 18:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Merge The histories of Florida National Guard units are tied directly to company level units and their communities. This unit has not been tied to a specific Regiment, yet has a very long history as a company. It was also an important part of the Franklin County community. There is little history of this unit that can be merged with a Regiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudangel ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • You may be right, but the article currently amounts to a description of which federal units this company was folded into at different times and who commanded the unit at different times. If the unit were independently notable as a part of the county community, there would be reliable, preferably secondary sources talking about the guard's activities or how membership in the guard was important or something like that. Looking at the sources currently there and at newspapers.com and other sources, I don't see anything that really overcomes Peacemaker67's critique. Smmurphy( Talk) 02:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

G'day Mudangel, you only get to !vote once. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with possible rename I agree that this is a local military unit and one of many companies with long histories; however this long-lasting unit has as much coverage as many of the larger USAR units that I have written articles about. I would rather not have this article deleted because its information could not realistically be merged as the company was not always an element of units such as the 124th Infantry (for example 106th Engineers have no article), and having this much information about this one company would cause undue weight relative to other companies whose heritage is part of the 124th Infantry and now 153d Cavalry. However, I am open to changing the article title since Franklin Guards is not unique - two Mississippi CSA companies and one from Virginia also used the nickname. Kges1901 ( talk) 02:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • In the meantime, I think it would be a good idea to add a hatnote or see also section linking to those other regiments with this name or regiments with companies with this name. Smmurphy( Talk) 20:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • However, no other units with the same name are particularly notable. This is the only one which is made notable by its lineage extending into the present. Kges1901 ( talk) 21:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Kges1901 - The civil war era is surely not notable standalone (company B of 4th Florida Rifles), and also post 1941 (where this was absorbed into the regular army). What we are left with - is the 1865-1941 period. During this period - the company was mustered 3 times (as per the article - during the Spanish-American war (76 men, did not participate, after the war listed as 33 men), WWI (no count given) and WWII (17 officers and 69 men). So we're talking about a local militia unit, that was (per the article) part of the Florida National Guard, that numbered less than 100 men. Perhaps the Fort Coombs Armory is notable. But the local branch of the state milita, with less than 100 men? Most of the content of note could possibly be merged to Florida National Guard. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Icewhiz - Florida National Guard did not exist until 1903, previously the Guards were part of the Florida State Troops. The problem with upmerging is that the higher articles don't exist and if we merged with FL NG it would unbalance the article since a company is of little significance to the overall history of the Florida National Guard. Kges1901 ( talk) 11:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Icewhiz, Kges1901, I can take suggestions. It is a work in progress. There's been a lot of research just to get to this point. But I created the article because it is a unique unit whose history does not follow a higher level Battalion or Regiment. And it was a significant organization in Apalachicola, Florida that represented a very significant proportion of the population. Just looking at that town, you'll see the population has fluctuated from 1,900 in 1860 to 3,000 to 2,000 today. So, while numbers may seem small, The company represented roughly 5% of the town's population in the Civil War, nearly 3% around 1890, and 2% in 1940. That is noteworthy when you know not even half of 1 percent serves in the U.S. Armed Forces today. The point is the unit was an important social structure to the town. I am currently working with the United States Army Center of Military History to get separate lineages for some special and notable companies in the Florida National Guard. This is one of them.
  • Merge per Peacemaker67 not notable Mztourist ( talk) 04:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - effectively a separate infantry or other company for significant portions of its history and thus notable. In my view, also, all these named companies are effectively self-contained separate "regiments" on the British model, and thus notable individually. Finally, I would also argue that we should not destroy a long and well-researched article, which is the cincher for me. Would possibly reduce it, but merging would unbalance the text about the current regiment. Possible title would be Franklin Guards (Florida). Buckshot06 (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Buckshot06, Exactly! Thank you. The companies throughout the Florida National Guard are still being moved between battalions/regiment to new ones. This is called re-stationing or re-flagging and it shows that the common historical thread is with the individual companies. I only recently built this article and planned to continue to develop it. I have stopped since its up for deletion. Franklin Guards (Florida) would be a good title.
  • Yes, Apalachicola is in Franklin County. See this 1893 Apalachicola city directory for example; note that at the time the Franklin Guards were in the 3rd Battalion, so it is an example of technically erroneous identification by contemporary media. Kges1901 ( talk) 01:57, 21 November 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Franklin_Guards&oldid=1137858715"