Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28th Combat Support Hospital (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   keep. Nomination withdrawn. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

28th Combat Support Hospital (United States)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unit not notable per WP:NOTABILITY due to lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Anotherclown (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per developing guideline discussion and discussion at Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States). Buckshot06 (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: this search produced quite a few hits, but from what I can tell they are really only passing mentions, not enough to write a full article that would demonstrate notability: . Happy to change my opinion if significant coverage could be established, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: if in line citations to Global security.org were added in, with some of the passing mentions in the search I did (see above), would that demonstrate notability to keep? When the info is written in prose as Bahamut has done now (see below) it gives the article a much more encyclopedic feel. What does everything think of that? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep:I have rewritten the article and added quite a few citations. I think it would now meet the notability requirements. Could other editors who have expressed an opinion here please take a look and state whether they still hold the view to delete, or if the article could now be kept? Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, good job. Sadads (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete : I've done some revision, but I still think it lacks sufficient notability per the established precedent of American military unit sizes.  bahamut0013  words deeds 22:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep: AR's revisions and new refs demonstrate sufficient notability, I think, and put the article into a much more respectable light. Excellent job!  bahamut0013  words deeds 18:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per expansion by AustralianRupert, Sadads (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the original nominator I would like to withdraw the AFD (if possible). Clearly a lot of work has been done recently and I am prepared to accept its notability. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 07:09, 9 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.