Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/144th Infantry Regiment (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The result was keep.The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary recommendations. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

144th Infantry Regiment (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) 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Holy cow. This is the regiment around which the South Seas Detachment was built. That makes it one of the most notable Japanese Army regiments of the Pacific War. --Yaush (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Yes, it is one of the best-known and most notable regiments in the Imperial Japanese Army. Pull any book on the war in New Guinea and you will find references to. But start with Miller, Long and McCarthy, and work through the shelf from there. This is why we have WP:MILUNIT; but if you want to not "buy the argument that military units are automatically notable" then you to demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE with the sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. General consensus is that military units of this size are notable, per WP:MILUNIT. I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if this regiment was American or British. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:42, 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 * Withdrawn It is very clear that this isn't going to get deleted.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?  21:00, 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.