Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Army Rifle Company Organization 1943-45

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) 07:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Army Rifle Company Organization 1943-45[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not encyclopedic material, or at the very least should be merged somewhere into World War II or something. Diego Grez (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is encyclopedic information. Obviously sources need to be provided but that should not be difficult. There is a need to integrate it better into other relevant material, on US army organisation or the role of the rifle company, whether and in what way the 1943-5 rifle company differed from that before and after etc. But those are not reasons for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHingston (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is just a recitation of statistics with no sourcing whatsoever. If there is a desire to work on a US Army Rifle organisation article, this would not be the basis for such and article, so there is no need to keep this material. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sort of. Some of this, if referenced, might make sense in an article about the overall organizational structure for Army Rifle Companies. But just a raw list, with no context, doesn't pass muster from a notability standpoint. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: editors should also look at US Army Infantry Battalion Organization 1943-45, which I seconded a prod on before the tag was replaced with a merger tag. I normally dislike mass nominations, I think these two are similar enough to warrant adding this to the nom. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of the United States Army any data that is useful, then delete (not likely to be useful as a redirect). It fails to have notability as an article, and is just a directory of statistics on its own. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is there to merege? The material is completely outsourced stats. If you found the reference, then the material could be added directly to History of the United States Army without this article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect anywhere appropriate. Remains unverified. --Pink Bull 14:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate, contextless and unsourced information. Sandstein 05:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.