Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentleman Cavalier

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 of the debate was Redirect to cavalier (as redirects are, indeed, cheap) Proto||type 11:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gentleman Cavalier

AFAICT (using Google) this is a neologism. The article was added by a newly created user account in one edit with no corrections --Philip Baird Shearer 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because Wikipedia has an article on Cavaliers which covers at least half this article in more detail and without the errors. The second half of the article builds a case that the "Civilian member of Household Cavalry regiments are referred to as gentleman cavaliers, much as membership in the Household Division was once restricted to the nobility. " I have searched on Google using ["gentleman cavalier" "Household Cavalry"], ["gentleman cavalier" "British Army"], ["gentleman cavalier" "Blues and Royals"], and the same search using "gentleman cavalierS" and the same second strings, none of them returned a page close to the description given in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cavalier. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  Why? pleases cite a source to prove that this is not a neologism. Philip Baird Shearer 22:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  I didn't say it's not a neologism. Redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd suggest redirect to cavalier here. There is some support for the article's assertion that the term Gentleman Cavalier is in use in commonwealth nations to describe civilian horseriders attached to cavalry regiments.Here for instance, the Canadian Akaash Maharaj, who rides with the Governor General's Household Cavalry, once referred to gentleman cavaliers in this sense, though since then he has updated the term to "civilian cavaliers" (presumably as the sex requirements have been relaxed by the cavalry) Although this is far from an adequate reference, it is enough to convince me that the information is substantially correct and verifiable. It would therefore be a mistake to remove the entry altogether because someone might see the term gentleman cavalier and want to look it up. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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.