Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/785th Military Police 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, consensus is that the article is a valid topic and can be made to meet the notablity guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

785th Military Police Battalion

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

Delete, unsourced article about a reserve military unit - at what levels are units notable? Does every group get an article? Even without any sources showing meeting group notability standards? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unsourced and nn Ban  Ray  23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability established by WP:RS. JJL (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Battalions (which consist of about 1000 soldiers) are generally considered notable and a Google search turns up lots of useful looking links: . --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fractionating units of larger organizations into innumerable sub-articles is just plain inconvenient. Only military units that have transcended their function and become the stuff of legend should have their own article. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep - See if this can be fleshed out a bit. For chrissakes, it's only been up a couple of days. Let some people have a stab at it, see what can be added to it. But a U.S. Army battalion is generally a large formation of about 400-600 soldiers, depending on its function, and this being a battalion that doesn't fall under a regiment, it might have a bit of history behind it. If it can't be expanded much beyond the basics of garrison and mission, then yes, delete.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;Looks like this is a member of 300th Military Police (MP) Command/88th Regional Readiness Command/U.S. Army Reserve Command. There isn't even a page for the 88th Regional Readiness Command yet. (See Structure_of_the_United_States_Armed_Forces.) I suggest starting at the top level commands first.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's no reason to delete this article though, as this unit is notable in isolation of it's headquarters. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Unit saw action in at least 3 WWII Campaigns, so I believe Cites will appear. Its a stub. we can afford the paper ... oh, right WP is WP:NOTPAPER. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  13:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Exit2DOS2000 and Nobunaga24. This is a large military organization with a long history, and the page was just created this week.  I'm sure copious cites will be found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Nick Dowling. Notable. If we prefer, we could rename to 300th MP Command and incorporate more units within it. Update: the 88th RRC draws its history from the 88th Infantry Division (United States) and several other USAR readiness commands have had their history placed at those pages. You could argue that thus we do have a page for the 88th RRC. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i talk to me 13:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, page is just a listing, no sources, deluge of knee-jerk "keep" not-votes don't change the fact that the unit is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If being involved in 3 WWII Campaigns does not make a unit notable, what does? There is a difference between 'knee-jerk "keep"' and recognising what is notable? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, now, User Paddy Simcox obviously knows the motivation behind everyone's keep votes. Why, my vote was just a knee-jerk reaction, involving no thinking whatsoever. How did he know?--Nobunaga24 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Try searching for "785th Military Police". Tons of sources out there to add for description+history.  For those who haven't searched, battalion is still around and has served in recent conflicts.  Wikipedia ought to, and does, cover battalion-level units. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article doesn't "cover" the unit; it's one sentence long. Let's delete it until it has actual content. Paddy Simcox (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what we call a stub. You expand those. If the article on Canada was one sentence, you wouldn't delete it, you would E-X-P-A-N-D it.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, if we delete it due to lack of content and then find the content and recreat it the article would be in hot water almost before going up becuase recreation of deleted material is a CSD-certified delete category. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This was listed for deletion way too fast, I think we should allow it to stay and see if it expands in the next 30 days, then move from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my delte, since some material was added to the article. Paddy Simcox (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Last status does not make previous notability invalid. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per talk] and [[User:Nobunaga24|Nobunaga24.  BWH76 (talk) 15:56, 25 March 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.