Deletion of 3rd Rhode Island Heavy Artillery

Comment: Necrothesp is correct, but so is Christroutman, and I believe the need to write an encyclopedia article that clearly indicates where its material is sourced from () is much more important to encyclopedic integrity than having a cut-and-paste job to show that "some sort of information exists in some fashion someplace" (which is about as specific as it can get at present).  As far as I am concerned, this article is unsourced - without specific pages given, I have no empirical proof that the information in the article as presented exists in the source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT)

Comment: from a fairly brief interweb search I found a few books (Cox, Dyer, and Grandchamp) that include quite a bit of coverage (multiple pages in each), whilst the regiment also seems to receive some passing mention in many more https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=third+rhode+island+heavy+artillery#q=third+rhode+island+heavy+artillery&tbm=bks&start=10https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=third+rhode+island+heavy+artillery#tbm=bks&q=3rd+rhode+island+heavy+artillery (9,000 + hits in Google books). There also seems to be quite a few websites of varying quality. Whilst I agree that the article has numerous issues I'm not sure  is the way to go. I admit to having little knowledge of researching American Civil War units but I did uncover some promising sources so I'd imagine a specialist would be able to find many others. This leads me to believe that the assumption of the general notability of units of this size in  is a reasonable one and that there is likely to be significant coverage per the requirements of . I'd suggest merging all the subunit articles into the regimental article as this should easily allow a fairly decent article to be written to cover the activities of them all (whilst individual sub-unit articles would probably be difficult to sustain). I've now made some changes to the article in an attempt to clean it up a bit and add what referenced information I found that seemed relevant. In doing so I removed a chunk of unreferenced material but of cse would be quite happy for it to be worked back in by other editors if they are able to provide the appropriate references
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:MILUNIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: per . Let a conscientious editor write this article properly. While the unit meets MILUNIT and there are sources out there I see no point in keeping this mess
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:NUKEANDPAVE)

Comment: It's ''referenced''?  What exact piece of information in the article is stated to have come from the "reference" given?  "Sources" aren't just "I put some text in there that looks right, so it's sourced now."  That "reference", by the way, is available online, is over 750 pages long, and is a primary source not suitable for establishing notability.  Therefore, an incomplete citation isn't going to be sufficient here.  This has got to meet 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MILUNIT)