Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy the War God


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Teddy the War God

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested Prod. Fails WP:N insufficient coverage found for this mascot to pass. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 04:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No sources; fails WP:N and WP:V. If the platoon has officially changed its name on the back of the mascot, maybe this can be mentioned in the platoon's article (does it have one?) if it can be sourced?  Ka renjc 14:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This Google search turned up only one hit: A Tweet. There seems to be virtually no coverage in reliable sources accessible via the web, thus fails WP:GNG and WP:V. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 14:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication given that the mascot meets notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: You've got to be kidding me. This is simply crap that was made up one day by a few bored soldiers, and has absolutely no notability or encyclopedic value.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Author has modified the page to be about his platoon, rather than the mascot. I still find an utter lack of notability in this unit, despite some self-published documentary about a higher headquarters (made by a non-notable company with a non-notable director) that mentions the platoon a few times. The author also has an issue about removing the AfD tag, despite several warnings not to; and has copied the info over to Teddy war god, which was quickly made a redirect.  bahamut0013  words deeds  17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: the lack of coverage confirms it is not notable. The platoon itself also wouldn't be notable enough for an article either. The general consensus about military units in the Mil Hist project is that it is generally only battalion-level or higher units that are notable (although some company/squadron equivs are notable and some battalions are not). AustralianRupert (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, absolutely NN.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 16:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per AustralianRupert and JBSupreme, couldn't have put it better. ukexpat (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete References not sufficient to meet WP:ORG. More generally, this is a small sub-unit of an Army unit and it would be very unlikely for it to be notable (each infantry battalion has about nine infantry platoons, and the US Army has dozens of infantry battalions). Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per all the above, and the fact that the creator does not wish to accept any assistance or advice. In any case, I have difficulty seeing how a platoon would meet notability requirements, although it is of course possible. GregJackP (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete NN. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:55, 20 June 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.