Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D Ordnance Battalion


 * 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. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

3D Ordnance Battalion

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia surely isn't a collection of tables of battle? Not of units as small as battalions anyway? SGGH speak! 22:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a large enough unit and not enough content to have its own page. Ironholds 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think, if you look up what this is unit is, you would change your mind. MrPrada (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete does not currently show why it is any more notable than thousands of other service support battalions all around the world. Buckshot06(prof) 23:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Correct, it does currently show it, but if you were to look it up yourself, you would find it is in need of cleanup, not deletion. MrPrada (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This is the 3d EOD. They are out there every day clearing IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. EOD battalions support multiple divisions in theater. This is one of the more notable units of the entire modern U.S. military. Needs to be renamed and rewritten (cleanup), but no way we delete this. Since the battalion HQ becomes a Corps asset and the companies integrate at the battalion level, you'll find more individual stories on the companies themselves, but the 3d EOD is easily on par with any civil war regiment/battalion, which are automatically included! MrPrada (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Their task or deployment, within reason, doesnt matter. I'm not sure if there is a notability section on military units (I couldnt find one). You may note that the makeup of battallions during the US civil war was very different to the current setup, and so comparing them and a war that defined a country, in some ways, with a different type of unit and a different type of war really isn't appropriate. I'm not saying the topic is non-notable, i'm saying the page as it is isn't suitable. There really appears to be little or no salvageable content; the only thing on the page is a deployment table. Ironho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The task certainly does matter. EOD is the most elite branch of the military, even more so then Special Forces or Rangers. There is a notability table on military units, WP:MILMOS (and the unit section below). If you perform a search on the 3d EOD Bn and the subordinate companies that are there now, you will find significant coverage from second party sources. MrPrada (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence of them being more senior than special forces? And the notability guidelines there cover people, not units. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 23:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a question of seniority, as a SF Battalion is on par with an EOD battalion. But the selection for EOD is more stringent, and the school is longer. The missions are both vital to the battle space. However in the world of IEDs, Iraq and Afghanistan (where I've been my self), EOD is who you call to save lives. There are countless stories available about the work of this battalion, as I said, mainly at the company level because of the way it task organizes when it arrives in country. MrPrada (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it. MrPrada, please dont get involved with articles where you might have a prejudice. Sentences like "This is the 3d EOD. They are out there every day clearing IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan" as a keep reason doesn't exactly read as a bastion of NPOV. Even if you have the best of intentions, I find it's best to steer away from such articles.
 * Again, POV is a reason for cleanup, not for deletion. And how does POV play into a deletion discussion, anyway? I think my point was to avoid having to do all the research just for an AFD discussion on something that should be common knowledge as far as MILHIST is concerned (e.g. "Not a large enough unit to have its own entry). Only the second delete really addressed a problem, which is that the article currently does not show cause for notability. Hence my points above. Below is a smattering of some articles that show notability beyond doubt for the 3d EOD Battalion. Note that these are all from OIF/OEF, these companies have histories dating back to WWI and there are articles available for WWII, Korea, and Veitnam, along with CONUS operations. MrPrada (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. Somebody with a userbox that indirectly says blowing up 18, 19, and 20 year old American and British kids (soldiers) is ok (because the Iraq resistance isn't using peaceful boycotts) will lecture you on not getting involved in an article because of your "lack of neutrality." Somebody who knows nothing about the military shouldn't even be commenting on whether a military-related article should be deleted, if you want to take the approach of deeming who should be able to "get involved" with articles.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

responsible for destroying all remaining wreckage for the Air Force ..."
 * Washington Post. "The weapons are homemade, cobbled together from artillery shells or other munitions, and hidden in such things as a clump of dirt, a soda can or a dead animal. According to military officials ..."
 * Miami Herald. " Tim Everhard, commander of the 3rd Ordnance Battalion, which is housed at Baghdad International Airport and specializes in explosive removal. ..." (5 related)
 * Yakima Herald-Republic. "Yakima's 53rd Ordnance Company spent seven months defusing Afghanistan, disposing of some of those bombs, disarming booby traps and taking out the land ...
 * USA Today. " He's a specialist in the Army's 53rd Ordnance Company, based in Yakima, Wash. The grave, US soldiers have been told, contains the body of a small boy killed ..."
 * Seattle Post-Intelligencer. " "We haven't positively identified what they were yet," said Lt. Karl Reinhard of the Army's 3rd Ordnance Battalion. "Almost certainly it's military, ..."
 * St. Louis Post-Dispatch " Soldiers from the 53rd Ordnance company, based in Yakima, Wash., have disposed of more than 200 mines and unexploded bombs since arriving, concentrating on ..."
 * Yakima Herald-Republic. " YAKIMA TRAINING CENTER - For members of the Army's 53rd Ordnance Company, the rule was and is that producing publicity of any sort would cost you a case of ..."
 * The News Tribune. " About two dozen soldiers from 53rd Ordnance Company at the Yakima Training Center have been in Afghanistan for a few weeks now, clearing mines and ..."
 * Yakima Herald-Republic. " They're the highly-trained 53rd Ordnance Company, experts in explosives of all kinds. They've called Yakima home since 1987. ..."
 * The Guardian. "The 787th Ordnance Company was
 * Monterey County Herald. " Deputies then contact the 787th Ordnance Company based at Moffett Field in Mountain View, which is summoned to examine the findings. ..."
 * San Mateo County Times. " The official with the 787th Ordnance Company (EOD), responsible for "explosive ordnance disposal" and based at Moffett Field in Mountain View, ..."
 * Questions and Observations. " They called in a two-man team from the 759th Ordnance Company (Explosive Ordnance Disposal). Protocol, as far as Oh knew, dictated that someone in Moss’s ..."
 * Washington Post. "759th Ordnance Company (EOD). While deployed to Iraq for the early part of OIF-1 (and for all of it), systems were just being established to get all the ..."
 * Charlotte Observer. " Boudreau, Freligh and Wildfong were explosive ordnance disposal specialists assigned to the 707th Ordnance Company at Fort Lewis, Wash. Acting Army Maj. ..." (76 related including Dallas Morning News, Denver Post, UPI, Erie Times-News, New York Times, St. Petersburg Times, Delta Democrat-Times, Syracuse Herald Journal)
 * CBS News. " Craig, Galewski, and Maugans were part of 710th Ordnance Company, a small unit on a Navy submarine base in San Diego. Galewski's wife, Christine, heard from ..." (9 related, including San Diego Union Tribune, Dallas Morning News)
 * Army News Service. " Sgt. 1st Class Neil Morrison, and Spc. Joshua Peltz, of the 710th Ordnance Company helped prepare the munitions for destruction. ..."
 * There are really too many of these to list all at once. Google scholar and google books also have a number of resources. I agree that the current form needs to change, but there is no cause for deletion, only cleanup. MrPrada (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont think press coverage for military units is a good way of defining their notability. Look at the SAS; they were practically unknown until the Iranian Embassy siege. Nevertheless, I appreciate the hard work, even if it's just material to be included in the eventual page. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 18:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice In this form the article cannot be kept becuase of the nominators concerns, however if sufficient information can be pulled to rebuild the article with some meat on what is essentially bear bones then I would be more open to keeping it here. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article does not really stand out as an interesting encyclopedia article, the topic is notable -- more so than various railroad stations, ships, etc. that have WP listings. (I know about "other stuff" :-)) Redddogg (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is about the content as well as the topic; it's currently just a table and is completely useless to anyone not familiar with the topic. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 08:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is notable enough. The content is lacking.  It simply needs attention from an editor (or two) to bring it up to an acceptable standard. It's only been in existence five minutes, give it some time for people to work on it. Sounds like Mr Prada has interesting information, with citations and references, could be just what it needs.  Knowledge doesn't necessarily mean conflict of interest!  Austin46 (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Didnt say it did, but the tone of voice he's using does. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 09:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the tone in these discussions hardly seems relevant. What's important is the tone used in an article.  If you know about a subject and provide refernces to back up your statements, it's really perfectly possible to write neutrally about it.  And I'm sure if there was a problem with NPOV, it would be picked up on by other editors.  In terms of this discussion it seems to me that Mr Prada's background knowledge is useful to the debate.  Which I came to with an open mind. Austin46 (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to 3rd Ordnance Battalion (EOD) (United States) to follow the MILMOS naming conventions for battalions after this discussion closes. MrPrada (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Battalion sized units are notable; needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion. Unit has unique mission, too. Not a typical support unit.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2008 (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.