6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment : No sources found meeting WP:SIRS , nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth .  Article does not indicate any engagements in which the unit was notable.  Source eval table: Comments Source Blog post/timeline, fails WP:RS, does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth * https://civilwarintheeast.com/confederate-regiments/north-carolina/6th-north-carolina-infantry-regiment/ Enthusiast website, fails WP:RS * https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/6th_nc_volunteers_regiment.html Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV.  Government troop registers do not show notability * https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Register_of_North_Carolina_Troops_1861.pdf Fails WP:IS, WP:RS, Memories written down in 1901 source states, "WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMMANDS." * https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Histories_of_the_Several_Regiments_and_Battalions_from_NC_in_the_Great_War_Volume_I_Walter_Clark_1901.pdf Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV.  Government troop registers do not show notability Register of North Carolina Troops, 1861, by John Spelman page 13.  Duplicate of above ref Capt. Lawson Harrill on April 9, 1901, page 786-808 in the "History of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina in the Great War-'65-Volume 1. Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: You might find more sources if you search the 16th North Carolina, which is apparently what this regiment was reorganized as in June 1861. The 16th doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, which is interesting given its combat history (Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, and others). It might be worth rewriting the article for the 16th North Carolina, noting its origins as the 6th Volunteers. Intothat darkness 00:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply :This sounds like a good solution. If @ PaulusHectorMair : feels this is a good solution and wants to pursue it, I will support drafting as "16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" or another appropriate title. The author is new, I'm not sure they know this discussion is taking place, PaulusHectorMair if you could reply here with your thoughts, even if it is just to let us know you are aware of the discussion. // Timothy :: talk 00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TimothyBlue , Intothatdarkness ,  and PaulusHectorMair : - Let's hold up a minute on this. There's a conflation going on here - the "6th North Carolina Volunteers " was the unit that became 16th Regiment per this but there's also a separate 6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Per this brief NPS listing it had quite a bit of fighting, and the State of North Carolina published an entire book on this 6th Infantry. Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply So if I'm following this right: This article (as currently written) is about the unit that was reorganized into the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Its currently named "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" but it was actually the "6th North Carolina Volunteers" There is another unit "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" that is unconnected to the current article or the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment.  Let me know if I've got something wrong.  // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hog Farm , I thought about pinging you, but didn't want to run into the whole canvassing thing with AfD.  The ACW isn't one of my major fields, especially Confederate units, so I just did a basic search.  I wondered about the Volunteer/Infantry thing, but I've seen it used interchangeably with other units.  I of course defer to your expertise.  Intothat darkness 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello.  I am indeed aware of this discussion and have been checking it every few hours or so.  I would be open to pursuing an article on the 16th, as this was my original goal.  I should have realized sooner that the two regiments were different, and frankly I am questioning my competence for such a silly mistake.  PaulusHectorMair ( talk ) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Making silly mistakes is part of the job... :) // Timothy :: talk 01:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Now that the unit confusion is sorted, is there sourcing for this unit?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:16, 22 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus