Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/436th Transportation Battalion (United States)
- 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 delete. Shimeru 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
436th Transportation Battalion (United States)
- 436th Transportation Battalion (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This deletion debate is the result of earlier comments at WP:MILHIST about notability of military units. The previous standard is that all units of battalion level and above were usually considered notable. Yet comments have been made, including at the previous 3-319 FA AfD, that some larger units might not really be notable, depending on the circumstances. Looking at this unit, I am hard pressed to read any particular notability into it; a reserve, non-combat military unit which has done only a single, very recent tour, as part of the Iraq War. What do others think? I am inclined to believe that not all battalion level units are notable; to give another example, individual Soviet rifle battalions, part of brigades. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: in this case I'm inclined to agree. The article would need to be more than just a list of dates to indicate notability, I feel. I'm willing to reconsider if significant coverage can be found (e.g. is there a book that mentions the unit in some detail, or some journals?), without this I don't feel it meets the notability requirements. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As it stans, this article doesn't seem to be worth keeping. If it were fleshed out some, and had some good sources, I'd reconsider. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The unit has entries in U.S. Army heraldic crests. The sources only support a stubby entry currently but this is no reason to delete as the entry may be expanded or merged. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is an invalid argument. If we kept every military unit with an insignia we'd have every company with it's own design from the last 300 years or so. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and so we have room for any number of military units. We already have about a quarter of a million minor planets. Click random article a few times to get a feel for our huge scope. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A planet is a large physical object. It deserves mention. Not all groupings of 150 (or 600) people in history do so. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and so we have room for any number of military units. We already have about a quarter of a million minor planets. Click random article a few times to get a feel for our huge scope. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is an invalid argument. If we kept every military unit with an insignia we'd have every company with it's own design from the last 300 years or so. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2010 (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.