Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/54th Military Police Company (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   delete. It appears to me that, aside from awards for distinguished service, no strong rationale was provided to counter the consensus of the previous AfDs or the original PROD nomination, therefore my decision is to delete both. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

54th Military Police Company (United States)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD. Original PROD nomination was, "In accodance 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) 11:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)". SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Also nominating 63rd Chemical Company (United States) on same basis. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original nominator of the proposed deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both: lack of notability, especially per set precedence on unit sizes. Lack of references for both lead me to second the original prods.  bahamut0013  words deeds 01:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both: as per the precedent cited and the fact that although some passing mentions were found for these units when I looked for sources I couldn't find significant coverage. I have no dramas with these units being discussed on their parent unit pages, though, but feel that if this is to be done it needs to be more than just a list of dates of activation/de-activation, some description of service in prose form would be the best way to deal with it IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep both of these units qualify as notable because they are distinct and unique units in the military. Unlike other units which have unnofficial nicknames or just have number designations, these units have received Special designations, which require a certain caliber of historical importance, as a name, before they will be recognized. Would unit pages such as add enough additional material to be sufficient to reach notability? Sadads (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I figure that having an officially-sanctioned nickname does not equate to notability. If they actually have historical significance, the articles don't establish it.  bahamut0013  words deeds 00:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for both units. Looking at their articles, both received campaign credits for WWII. Additionally, the second article has received additional campaign credits for Southwest Asia and the War on Terrorism. moreno oso (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This would justify the inclusion of every company sized unit in the history of humanity which saw war service. They are not all notable!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply inre notability as the nomination concerned non-combat units. Units are not awarded campaign ribbons because they stayed CONUS. Furthermore, non-combat support forces can and do operate on the front line. Military police during war can perform peacekeeping operations during all phases of armed conflict to include pre- and post-war. Chemical units during the Gulf War were highly desired because of chemical Scud missiles. moreno oso (talk) 13:28, 4 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.