Deletion of List of Territorial Army units (2012)

Comment: per Nom and the the flawed rationale of {{u|Concertmusic}} (the size of the article has nothing to do with notability) and {{u|Andrew Davidson}} (A |primary source does not advance notability and : {{tq|However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.}}) This is a 2013 list article.  I was wondering exactly what {{u|Brigade Piron}} stated: "why 2012 is particularly justifiable compared with, say, 2011 or 2013". With the direction keep !votes are leaning we could have a very large (makes it obviously notable) article on any subject where a primary source is shown. That is not according to our accepted community practices on sourcing such as |{{tq|All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, '''lists''' and captions, must be verifiable.}} That does not necessarily mean "presented on the article" but along with , since notability is questioned, then proof should be presented. Lacking this is evidence of a lack of notability. The criteria of Wikipedia:LISTN clearly states "independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". Since primary sources do not advance notability there is a very fundamental issue with claims the article satisfies WP:LISTN. Since none of the "keep !votes" are advocating to keep because of invoking  (so we can't discuss that) then the policies and guidelines are applicable to list articles, as a group, and with only primary sourcing it fails that. I am still trying to determine the encyclopedic value of such a list.  (#5) gives disadvantages of having such a list {{tq|...entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.}}, and sourcing that advances notability is the main issue
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST||WP:V||WP:BURDEN||WP:IAR||WP:CLN||WP:primary source)