Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/295th Ordnance Heavy Maintenance Company (FA)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

295th Ordnance Heavy Maintenance Company (FA)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A completely non notable military unit. Most of the text of the article consists of non notable training and deployments of the said unit. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is not particularly exciting and could use some re-work, but whether it is notable is subjective. These men trained at numerous camps in the United States (always moving by convoy), they crossed the Rhine, they participated in the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp, and as non-paratroopers they trained at Camp Toccoa, which is noteworthy in itself since the Stephens County Historical Society hadn't heard of this company until I furnished photographic evidence. This company may not have been on the front lines with bullets whizzing by their heads but they supported those brave men and did their part. Please, do not delete this page. 295th (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I think this could be made notable with a few more refs. WWII unit, that was was crawling with notability. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete I can find little of note for this unit. A company sized maintanance unit that had no extraordinary actions during the war.  No reason to keep this article whatsoever. Safiel (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. In accordance with Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) and Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States), which established that non-combat separate companies are not notable, and Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron, which established that non-combat air force ground support squadrons are not notable, these type of units, are not individually notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: no notability, the references only mention the subject in passing (proving existance, but not notability). Far too small of a unit to really be notable without some serious independant media attention. It really reeks of peacock terms, especially when you note that most of it consists of trying to leech it onto other articles and images.  bahamut0013  words deeds 01:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks references to establish notability per WP:ORG and its unlikely that such references exist given that it was an unremarkable support unit and there were hundreds of similar units in the wartime US Army. I'd suggest to the the article creator that they publish this on another website. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of reliable sources and general notability. No slur on the unit itself or its members, but it isn't notable enough for wikipedia, sorry. Skinny87 (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Skinny87. I appreciate your detailed explanation and your thoughtful approach. After some consideration and discussion with my peers, I'm accepting that maybe this is best. I've copied the info I authored, so you all can delete anytime.295th (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - while its reads as a fairly comprehensive history of the company, and could be of interest to some people, I found no activities of note. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - really the sort of thing that belongs on a personal website, not Wikipedia. The Land (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Outsource and delete - some information in this article would go well in other articles like those on the armies that the company supported or the wars and battles the company was involved in, but the article itself fails the notability guidelines and as such I agree with the deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 24 June 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.