Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27th Transportation Center (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. despite valiant efforts the keep side has not demonstrated on a policy level that this meets GNG Spartaz Humbug! 04:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

27th Transportation Center (United States)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

In accordance with Articles for deletion/436th Transportation Battalion (United States) and Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States), this article is not notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (categories)
 * Keep - believe that unit meets notability threshold by it's existence, participation in major US conflicts and decorations.Sadads (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Participation is one thing, but the notability threshold is whether or not that participation was significant. It doesn't seem so in this case; the Army tends to award participation credit to support units for being in proximity to a conflict, and not actually fighting in it.  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: The unit was involved in both World War II and Vietnam. It has been decorated numerous times including the Army Superior Unit Award for 1990-1991, the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Gold Star for Vietnam, and four Meritorious Unit Commendations for Vietnam. The 27th Transportation Center is notable, and it is a good candidate to be expanded into an excellent article. Inniverse (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: are there any other sources that can be added to the article? It seems like it is a battalion level organisation (unless I'm wrong), if a couple of other sources could be found and context added to the article it might be a keeper, but without this I'm not so sure. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nomination unless more references can be added to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see no notability in its activities during the various conflicts. It seems to have received no more unit awards than any other transportation battalion on the source site so that is not to me a valid statement of notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added another ref. The fact that the unit was involved in multiple wars across generations is, to me, a testamenet to its notability. Silver  seren C 22:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are literally thousands of Soviet rifle battalions that have been involved in multiple wars. None have ever been considered notable enough for an article to be created. Tens of thousands of other units of many many many countries are also in this category, but very few transportation units are considered notable, especially with only CMH data. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No shortage of space on the Wikipedia. Create away.  The Russian Wikipedia might have such articles already.   D r e a m Focus  05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, no. The Russian wikipedia still hasn't managed to list all armies, corps, and divisions - let alone considering starting to memorialise such small units as battalions. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added a couple of refs and a great deal of text that was lifted in its entirety from the unit history at the US Army Transportation School. @Buckshot, rifle battalions vs. transportation battalions is apples and oranges.  There are typically 9 combat (including rifle) battalions per division, but only 1 transportation battalion.  My personal view is that nothing less than a combat arms regiment is notable (with exceptions), but that support units are notable at battalion or lower level.   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have added a great deal of unfiltered text written in an unencylopaedic style without wikification or any other attempt to process it for inclusion. Increasing the amount of text in an article does not necessarily affect its notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Never thought that the amount of text had a bearing, and I disagree that it was written in an "unencylopaedic style." I am also aware that it needs to be wikified, but I wasn't going to stay up all night to do that.  Comments above indicated that more detail was needed, I found that detail and added it so that editors with more of a gnomish bent than I could work on it, with something to work with. BTW, I tend to be a deletionist, but I think that this article has potential.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   14:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed all of the text added by GregJackP, as it is an enormous copy/paste copyvio of this.   Snotty Wong   babble 14:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored it, it is not a copyvio, perhaps I might suggest that you check public domain, U.S. Government Works, second paragraph, which states: "In practice, this means that much material on *.gov and *.mil, as well as material on some *.us web sites (such as the sites of the U.S. Forest Service), are in the public domain." The material in question was created by the U.S. Army and is clearly within the public domain.   GregJackP   Boomer!   16:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What proof do you have that it was created by the U.S. Army? I see no such evidence of this in the .doc file that you've linked to.  Just because you ripped a file from a .gov site doesn't mean that it's automatically public domain.    Snotty Wong   communicate 14:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I talked to the webmaster - he confirmed that this specific file was public domain. Do you want his name and phone number?  Also, it was a .mil site, not a .gov, and this Army website clearly identifies items that are copyrighted - this one was not so marked.  I know how to verify public domain, and I know how to write articles.  I've explained it above, and an admin has explained it, and why your warning on copyvio was "ill-advised."  Please drop the stick.   GregJackP   Boomer!   16:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

— 213.65.251.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep A decorated unit, involved in many notable wars.  D r e a m Focus  05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Dream Focus invents a criterion "involved in many notable wars". flawed logic by Focus. article fails WP:N and WP:GNG. 213.65.251.42 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete My first vote was deleted why?Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions).    Snotty Wong   communicate 14:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There are thousands of such army units, and this one seems no more notable than any other.    Snotty Wong   communicate 14:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep: while the massive data dump doesn't really help establish notability, it did show me that the unit's participation (despite all combat action being self-defense) was significant enough to just barely creep over my personal threshold. However, if the article isn't cleaned up seriously, then the mess needs to be deleted and started over. It needs serious trimming, a more neutral and encyclopedic tone, much more wikification, balancing, referencing, and supporting material.  bahamut0013  words deeds 22:57, 16 August 2010 (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.