Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army of the 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 no consensus. There's agreement that this exists as a legal entity. What's less clear is whether sufficient sources exist to establish notability independent of the parent organization (i.e. United States Army). Normally, I'd relist something when there's no consensus after a full week, but in this case, the number of people involved in the discussion, and the depth of analysis, leads me to believe we've gone about as far as we can go here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Army of the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is based on a false belief that the "Army of the United States" and the "United States Army" are legally separate entities. Farside268 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article does appear to contradict United States Army to the extent that the latter article describes the United States Army as having continually been in operation since the time of the American Revolutionary War, and throughout all the World Wars, up to the present day. I doubt that there is any point at which the "United States Army" would not be recognized as the same entity prescribed in the United States Constitution. However, it is plausible that there is a historical distinction between the "Army of the United States" as constituted at the time of the Second World War and other iterations of the same military force, such as the Union Army. To the extent that sources can be found supporting any such distinction, this article should be moved to something like Army of the United States (1941–1974), so that the title can redirect to the clear primary topic, which is United States Army. bd2412  T 20:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: The "Army of the United States" (AUS) is a service component of the U.S. Army which is the legal conscription force of the United States ground forces. The AUS was used during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam.  The component is documented in millions of military service records and is listed as such on countless separation documents see here for an example.  A little bit more research should have been done before making this AfD, if this is even a legitimate nomination and not a hoax (the same editor attempted to remove component information two years ago as well and was quickly reverted) .  A similar nomination was made at Articles for deletion/Regular Army (United States) and the editor further made statements that the conscript force during World War I was also not a real entity .  These nominations should be speedily closed as there is a possibility that this was a hoax or, at the very least, an AfD made by someone unfamiliar with the proper procedure since these are widely cited and well documented service components of the United States Army. -O.R.Comms 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  22:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  22:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  22:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note Articles for deletion/Regular Army (United States) is a parallel discussion particpants may be interested in. L3X1 (distænt write)  22:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable topic. It is notable in its own right, and should not be a redirect.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – The article does not cite any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and I have been unable to find any myself, although Google apparently has a hard time distinguishing between this and United States Army. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the Army of the United States listed in Army regulations as well as codified legal statue .  Searching "Army of the United States" and/or "AUS" also provides several Internet sources.  What I find even more interesting is that the red link account making this "delete" vote has apparently bumped into the nominator before . -O.R.Comms 04:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of those sources is independent of the subject. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * U.S. Code, Title 10 and 32 and completely independent from the Army. The Army does not write its own legal statues. -O.R.Comms 15:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - presently - the article is entirely sourced to dictionary.com and 3 primary sources - 10 U.S.C. § 3001, Army Regulation 10-87, and Conscription Order #1. If this is indeed distinct from the United States Army - I would expect some better sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC) And looking at these -   - I'm not sure I'm convinced this is distinct from United States Army. In the 1920 act this seemed to refer to the entire army (including national guard and reserves). In WWII - this seems to mainly refer to the non-regular component of the us army (though it is unclear if this is assumed (i.e. if AUS - not RA, or exclusive).Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A good secondary source is the book "America's Army: Making the All-Volunteer Force", ISBN 0674035364. The book details how the draft worked and speaks on the AUS component in some length. I also noticed the second link you found pretty much confirms the AUS was a legal codified component as of 1941. The article can definitely be improved with sources, that is without argument, it just shouldn't be deleted. My main issue here is that the nomination of this AfD appears to be bordering on a hoax, or at least is bad faith in its nature. The editor who made the AfD has posted things in the past about this components not existing and being "fake". An attempt to Prod delete was removed two years ago, bordering almost on vandalism. There was also no discussion ahead of time about this AfD, nothing brought up on the talk page about article concerns, and this AfD was done simultaneously with an attempt to delete Regular Army (United States). I'm sorry if I am not adhering to good faith here, this AfD just seems really suspicious, made from an account with less than 300 edits on Wikipedia. I think its quite clear what is going on. -O.R.Comms 14:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC) United States Federal Regulation 32 CFR 571.1 (3): "The components of the United States Army are the Regular Army (RA), Army of the United States (AUS), Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS), and the United States Army Reserve (USAR)". By your logic, the article for United States Army Reserve and Army National Guard should go away as well? They are components on equal standing to the AUS in accordance with the law. I don't know how else to put it except that for anyone who has served in the military, this AfD is almost farcical. I get that the article needs better sources, but this is just getting silly stating that the AUS is synonymous with the U.S. Army as a whole. It clearly isn't - it's an internal component that comprises the conscript-draft force. As far as the nominator's motivations, they have directly stated that this article is part of a conspiracy theory which is also very silly.. We can agree to disagree here, since I simply don't know how much more evidence I can provide that this is a factual article -O.R.Comms 16:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Prior discussion is not required prior to AfD. PROD is not vandalism - it is an AfD alternative - though one would expect a followup in less than two years. Articles for deletion/Regular Army (United States) will probably SNOW keep. This brings us back to this article - I'm not convinced (but haven't !voted either way - at present it's unclear to me if this is notable or not notable - technically I would !vote for a merge and redirect - if not standalone). I don't see the sourcing to back this up in Korea and Vietnam. I agree this was a term that was used in WWII and possibly WWI - but it is not clear to me that non-regular component (in WWII) should be standalone from the full US army. The topic is covered in United States Army (though confusingly the lede there links here in an inappropriate fashion at the moment, United States Army does discuss nomenclature in 1941 and AUS).Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The AUS was definitely around during Korea and Vietnam. It was the service component for the draft force and was annotated as "US" on military personnel files as opposed to Regular Army which was "RA".  There were subtle differences and benefits compared to enlisting as RA as opposed to be drafting as US.  This is outlined in the source I provided up above as well as several others.  I actually am not an active editor of that article right now, but yes it could use beefed up sources.  As to the original nomination, perhaps it was harsh to call the Prod two years ago as vandalism, but the editor who is making these AfDs and Prods is apparently under the opinion that service components of the U.S. Army are part of a "conspiracy theory"  and that they aren't real with no sources.  Clearly, the opposite has shown to be true. -O.R.Comms 15:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * re "America's Army: Making the All-Volunteer Force" (which I do not have, but did look via Amazon look inside and google books) - I have been unable to locate use there (either of AUS or "Army of the United States").Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the AUS component appearing on a document from the Korean War as well as Army statues for the modern day AUS  as well as codified legal statue .  As far as the book I mentioned above, I don't have it or Google books, but it is used as a reference by the Military Personnel Records Center through their issuance of NA Form 13038s which also list the "Army of the United States" as a service component.  I suggest we move to the article talk page to talk further sources.  The main issue here was the nominator of this AfD said the component was fake, a conspiracy theory, and wasn't real.  I think thats been more than aptly disproved. -O.R.Comms 16:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The nom here was "This article is based on a false belief that the "Army of the United States" and the "United States Army" are legally separate entities". Considering our own (much better written and maintained) United States Army states in the lede that "The United States Army (USA) is the largest branch of the United States Armed Forces and performs land-based military operations. It is one of the seven uniformed services of the United States and is designated as the Army of the United States in the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 and United States Code, Title 10, Subtitle B, Chapter 301, Section 3001." - I wouldn't say this nom was far off the mark. The question here is whether this is a distinct and separate concept from the United States Army. I am unconvinced by the primary sources you provided above. The nominator's motivations (whom I'm not sure you are correctly stating) are besides the point.Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to United States Army, leaving redirect. The article is not sufficiently sourced, nor are sources readily available (see collapsed discussion above). The term seems to be used for different purposes - as a term in the constitution for the US Army, and by the US Army during wartime (definitely in WWII, maybe in Korea and Vietnam) for the expanded war-time component of the army (i.e. the non-regular army).Icewhiz (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I finally got the confusion here. The term "Army of the United States" has been used to both describe the Army as a whole as well as the conscription-draft service component.  The light bulb has gone off.  I rewrote the intro to the Army of the United States article and I hope this clears it up.  I would actually be perfectly fine with moving the article to "Army of the United States (component)" or something similar to make it clear this usage is separate from the nomenclature of Army and Armies of the United States which has been in use since the 1800s.  If there are any issues with the article re-write we can discuss at the article talk page.  Thanks for the alternate point of view, I think this was a big point of confusion on both sides of the issue. -O.R.Comms 18:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I would still prefer the article not to have the disambiguation, as a reader looking for it will find it harder to locate. Rather, the article should make it clear what it is about, and we should never, ever use "Army of the United States" incorrectly to mean "United States Army" on Wikipedia. I add here that not everyone was drafted into the AUS. A Regular Army officer like William F. Heavey would hold (different) rank both in their own corps and the AUS.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't get into this up above in the sources debate, but its very hard to debate this wasn't a real component, when its listed in the military records of every single major figure from the Second World War. AUS ranks were granted to all of the five star officers, including Eisenhower as well as Curtis Lemay and countless others.  Westmoreland also held AUS rank in Korea and, as you pointed out, it was common for officers to hold both different AUS and RA ranks.  There was another category, called "AUS Retired", but not being an Army person I'm not too familiar with it. -O.R.Comms 14:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It passes WP:V. However this internal nomenclature (and defunct I might add) of the US army is scantily covered outside of internal army regulations. You need at least a smattering of reliable subjects treating this as a subject. The best I was able to find was 1-2 paragraph glossary mentions -  - and some of what is in the article is substantially worse. Internal army nomenclature (for a temporary rank/position during wartime, but no real organization or separateness from the army beyond being an instrument for a temporary assignment (at a potentially much greater rank) - AFAIK there was no "Army of the United States" organizational structure or command chain - it was all 1 army with essentially temporary billets) without external coverage - belongs in the army article, not as a standalone.Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Added AFAIK to qualify that this is my impression of this, not a bulletproof stmt.Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably the best thing to do, after the AfD is closed, would be to start up a merge discussion on the article talk page. I was never in the Army (was Navy where we didn't have anything like this) so other Wikipedia editors who actually held AUS ranks can give their opinions.  It would also be interesting to research if the AUS actually had some specific offices associated with it's management, much like the Guard and USAR does today.  This component hasn't been around for 35+ years, so it would require some digging. -O.R.Comms 15:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per above arguments. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and direct to United States Army per above discussion. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2017 (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.