Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/114th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)


 * 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 keep. The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary opposing views. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

114th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that this specific unit is notable. I don't buy the argument that military units are automatically notable; it needs to be justified in sources, and I'm not seeing that.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep And I don't buy arguments that military history does not belong in the Wikipedia. Hmmm only 373,000 results on Google. And only mentioned in 2,670 books. How disappointing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Lose the strawman, Hawkeye7, you (should) be better than that. I never said that military history does not belong in Wikipedia. I said that this article gives no indication of notability. I'm seeing tons of sources that list it in large listings of units that exist, but not finding any that are discussing the unit specifically with a level of critical discussion that would meet GNG.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. General consensus is that military formations of this size are notable, per WP:MILUNIT. I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if this division was American or British. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We definitely would, because this article contains no claim to notability (independent of that it's a large unit) and only one source, which is offline. There's a really simple solution to this, which is "don't create crap articles". All this page has is a listing of places that a unit was stationed. That, in and of itself, gives no claim to notability. You can't just assume that someone with no experience in writing military history articles is going to come along and be able to find sources. I don't have the massive library that Hawkeye7 apparently has; I have to go off of Google searches, and in this case I've got pages of sources that mention it in lists, and nothing that's describing it in specific detail, nothing that would indicate the unit's notability. When all I'm getting are things like "A later landing by the 114th Division was similarly unopposed." or "And the experienced 101st, 106th, 108th, 109th, and 114th were on call-up status." from Google, I've got nothing to go on.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn It is very clear that this isn't going to get deleted. It would have been nice to have had someone from MILHIST take a look at this and say "You're right, there isn't an indication of notability in this, but here are sources [1], [2], and [3] that demonstrate it. Don't search using google, search using [X].", but (Redacted)  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:59, 4 December 2013 (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.