Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment


 * 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   Not-delete. Discussion on merging, moving, etc. can be continued on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

3rd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article is too specific and the information in this article could be rightly found elsewhere. The article was previously tagged with a PROD but the author removed it, and expanded the article based on the concerns I raised. I'm listing it here because of the overall concern of a small, potentially non-notable article and I would like consensus on the potential deletion.  elektrik SHOOS  23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Big text -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: see also Articles for deletion/2nd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Regiment Buckshot06 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to 319th Field Artillery Regiment. Usual practice is to merge all small battalion articles into a regimental article. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable and I have added a citation to demonstrate this. Whether the material is best covered at this level is not a matter for AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There already is some consensus about the notability of military units. WikiProject Military history/Style guide used to expand on it more, but you can see some of the history and discussion there and at the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.  bahamut0013  words deeds 18:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: there is no 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment or 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division to upmerge to, which is what I'd prefer. It seems to be fairly typical amongst artillery battalions, and considering the United States Army, a battalion isn't large enough to confer notability without some sort of other significance. That, and the realative lack of sources trouble me: GlobalSecurity doesn't really impress me, and the other ref says that the page cited is unavailable and isn't even formatted as a proper citation.  bahamut0013  words deeds 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The other source - 173rd Airborne Brigade: Sky Soldiers works fine for me and recounts the illustrious history of this battery, including various unit citations, records and other distinctions.  Please try again as this source discusses the unit in some detail and indicates that it is special. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * While I'm not quoting these as policy, WikiProject Military History's style guildelines includes both an essay on military notability and suggested article structures for army unit articles. Hope this will help with consideration.  elektrik SHOOS  19:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   yak 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment. Scope of article is currently too narrow.    Snotty Wong   yak 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment and expand. Battalion is not sufficiently notable standing on its own.    GregJackP    Boomer!  16:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note existence of 4th Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment which might be merged in. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its been nominated for deletion also.   D r e a m Focus  07:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also expanded this with Lineage and Honors certificate. Sadads (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the references in the article now. There is a lot of information out there about this.  Not sure if any of the 33 Google news results or 2 Google Book search results are notable or not, not bothering to read through all of that right now, and don't see a need, since other information has convinced me.  Shouldn't all divisions that have been around that long, and have participated in notable wars, be notable?  Listing notable people who once served as its commanding officer might be a good addition to the article.   D r e a m Focus  07:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment @DreamFocus - if the 3/319AFAR were a division (about 12-17K soldiers), you would be correct, but it is a battalion (500-800 men). The standard that WikiProject MilHist uses is that articles will normally be on regiment (3K men +/-) with only very exceptional smaller units meriting an article.  By combining the 3/319AFAR and the 4/319AFAR into an article on the 319AFAR, the unit gets its article, abet at a higher level.  As far as unit histories go, the 3/319AFAR, while good, is just not exceptional enough for a separate article.   GregJackP    Boomer!  05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This battalion is pretty exceptional, see the decorations that I added from their lineage. Sadads (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Upmerge - as per excellent logic of  GregJackP  . Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment INo reason for one battalion to have its own page.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - No doubt in my mind that this historic battalion is notable and that sources exist that would allow expansion of this article. A regimental article would also be good and this becomes a start for that as well.  Comments like this immediately above: No reason for one battalion to have its own page are not useful.  If the subject of the article is not notable, then no article, otherwise article.  No reason is not a reason.  I believe this one is notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and I made a page for the parent unit 319th Field Artillery Regiment using the public domain Lineage and Honors by the United States Army Center of Military History, working on getting some more sources and adding the decorations. Sadads (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Decorations done, bibliography on talk page, do what you will, Sadads (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also moved the page per the unit's lineage designation (which is the official name, though some may call it airborne). Sadads (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment for those of you suggesting move, I don't think that is a good idea based on how much information we can attain from the Lineage alone, which is public domain because it is produced by the United States Army Center of Military History. I already added ACMH tag and am adding ACMH text. Their is definitely enough stuff for a distinct page, Sadads (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If any more is needed to prove sufficient keep value, I copied the CMH bibliography up at Talk:319th Field Artillery Regiment (United States), for future research and if anyone else wants to go diving for more to fill out the narrative. Sadads (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is a difficult case to judge because there really is no hard and fast rule about what sized unit is notable and what is not. For instance, some company-level (squadron, etc.) units have articles and are notable enough to do so, as are some battalions, but then there are many battalions that are not notable enough to warrant an article. To an extent this comes down largely to the sourcing that is available. In smaller armies (for instance Australia, NZ, maybe even Canada) the sources tend to focus on lower-level units and whole books have been written on battalions and sometimes even company-level equivalents, whereas in larger armies (e.g the British, US, Soviet Union, Germany, Japan, etc.) the sources would probably focus a bit higher up (brigade, regiment, maybe even division or corps etc.) because of the size of their armies and breadth of their involvement in the various conflicts. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 25 July 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.