Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance 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. Research and consensus indicates subunits are clearly not notable. tedder (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

722nd Ordnance Company (United States)

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

Recent discussion at WT:MILHIST (under the heading '39th Military Police Company') seems to have decided that separate, non-combat companies that are not capable of independent combat action are not notable. Thus this sub-unit is being listed for deletion. Buckshot06(prof) 01:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LATER NOTE: DISCUSSION ON 39 MP COY WAS LOCATED AT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_89#39th_Military_Police_Company***


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Buckshot06(prof) 01:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications of notability, and searches of Google and Google News don't provide any. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The MilHist project is right about this---there is nothing significant to say about this one, and that will be the usual state   DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Currently there are no indications of why this sub-unit is notable. It is rare (but not a rule) that company-sized units receive the coverage required to make them notable by wikipedia standards. A Google search shows mainly wikipedia mirrors and as the article is not referenced there is no indication that such sources exist for this unit. The battalion that it belongs to (but which is currently redlinked itself) might be notable, thus information about this company could possibly be included in an article about the 192nd Ordnance Battalion (so long as sources exist for that unit). Having said this, I want to make clear I do not believe that all company-level units fail the notability test, as some will have the sources required to proved notability. A good example of this would be E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Indeed, some battalions will pass the test, while others will fail (notability needs to be determined on a case by case basis). If the creator or a subsequent contributor can find other sources (even paper sources, which can be accepted with good faith) that prove notability then I'd not be adverse to changing my vote, but as it stands I feel I must vote delete. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2009 (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.