Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Intelligence Company


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There is a clear consensus against deleting the page. Discussion about a potential merge can continue on the relevant Talk page. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

7 Intelligence Company

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article contains one reference which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This unit is part of the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, part of the Canadian Intelligence Corps. Upmerge to Canadian Intelligence Corps. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This could also be said about the separate extant articles on 2, 3, 4, and 6 Intelligence Company though. Why single out just this one for being amalgamated up? Anecdotally, in terms of actual personnel numbers it's actually one of the largest of those five currently. 90% of the content of those other articles is just Intelligence Corps history, repurposed (the 2 Int entry reprints basically two other Wikipedia articles on Pickersgill and Macalister)... at least the 7 Intelligence Company entry is humble enough not to pad itself out with redundancy.
 * It's also somewhat problematic that we've recently privileged the Canadian Intelligence Corps, which is currently a notional/paper organization with no responsibilities and zero staff of its own, with an article, over the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, the working unit which comprises most of the working military intelligence personnel in the Canadian Forces. While the names are similar, this construct makes more sense for the British Intelligence Corps. In the Canadian context it just looks silly. BruceR (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: So the only arguments being proposed here are Deletion or a Merge to Canadian Intelligence Corps? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article should certainly be somewhere (here or merged). It's a reasonable search terms given the media reports of sexual assault - for example it's mentioned 7 times in this article. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Yes. Just seems to me we've privileged all the other articles for exactly comparable things that engaged in shameless entry padding over the one article that didn't and kept itself factual. BruceR (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject meets GNG:  . I suspect there are offline sources as well.   Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 13:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article can probably be kept but needs to be improved. The articles on companies 3 and 6 may need attention as well. Vacosea (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2024 (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.