Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry)


 * 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. Merging or moving can be discussed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 08:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was already deleted last week, it's not notable and it's a copy cut from their website. -Sucrine ( &gt;&lt;&gt; talk) 21:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Delete on what basis? Official works of the U.S. government are not under copyright. We have hundreds of ship articles derived from the official histories on the U.S. Navy website. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I said, it is not notable. Wikipedia should not have an article about every division in the US army. Definition of notability by Wikipedia: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject". -Sucrine ( &gt;&lt;&gt; talk) 10:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 19:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tentative merge to 10th Mountain Division (United States). While brigade-level subordinate units can certainly be notable (although, frankly, one that's only been around since 1985 is rather pushing it in this respect—it simply won't have the extensive history needed to write a good article), the current article is an overly detailed play-by-play of every operation the brigade has undertaken rather than a true historical narrative; it would be a mere stub if it were trimmed down to the level of detail typical for a unit article.  Given how short the parent article is at the moment, I don't think a split is warranted at this time; if/when the parent becomes too long, we can reconsider the issue. Kirill Lokshin 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Lokshin. (Sucrine, please try to make an argument about notability, not a pass/fail determination.) -- Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there are no published works from sources that are independent of the subject, there is only the website that is not independant and it is not a published source. -Sucrine ( &gt;&lt;&gt; talk) 08:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, websites are published sources. Published doesn't mean "printed", but you have a point about independence.  -- Black Falcon 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Lokshin. Mike411 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the existence of independent sources:, and I'm sure a few of these 4300 news articles. I have replaced all of the content of the article with an infobox, two sentences, and three references.  I think this qualifies as a valid stub-length article now (although the title should be changed). -- Black Falcon 06:46, 25 March 2007 (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.