Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/187th Assault Helicopter Company


 * 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. for the 187th Assault Helicopter Company only. It is virtually an empty article anyway. The rest are no consensus. It is next to impossible to divine a consensus for disparate units of disparate notability and huge differences in the state of article development. I agree with 180.172.239.231 that this should have been speedy closed and nominated separately SpinningSpark 00:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

187th Assault Helicopter Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MILUNIT. As small units, companies need to really distinguish themselves to merit standalone articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd be pretty sure that that 911th Engineer Company (United States) is notable given its role, history and name, and a few useful-looking third party sources on it turn up in a Google search (such as  ) Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect 119th Assault Helicopter Company to 52nd Aviation Regiment. Rename and repurpose 362nd Signal Company to 41st Signal Battalion. Merge 642nd Engineer Support Company (ESC) to 7th Engineer Battalion (United States), then delete and create a new redirect from 642nd Engineer Support Company, since the current non-standard combination of name and abbreviation is a pointless redirect. Keep 911th Engineer Company (United States), which is an unusual unit. Keep 57th Signal Company (United States), since it's an independent unit and I see no value in deleting the information. Keep 187th Assault Helicopter Company, as it also appears to have been an independent unit. If it wasn't, then redirect to the appropriate parent unit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 *  Speedy close then nominate them separately--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete 187th Helicopter as -at the moment -not meeting WP:GNG. I can find passing references to it through searches but nothing in depth. (There's little content to lose at moment, and it's a near orphan to boot) GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bit more rummaging suggests 187th and 119th were both in 1st Aviation Brigade, if that's any help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Upmerge content and redirect all to parent formations Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine with sub-units. Not so useful with independent units! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. Delete the independent ones unless they have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, per GNG. That would not appear to be the case. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Upmerge and redirect articles per Necrothesp. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:48, 8 August 2014 (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.