Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/575th Signal Company (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 delete. if its lacking decent independant sourcing then the deletion votes are indeed policy based and compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

575th Signal Company (United States)[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105th Military Police Company (United States) separate, non-combat companies are not considered sufficent notable to merit their own articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the guidance at WP:MILMOS/N. Currently the article does not demonstrate how this subunit is notable enough to require an article by itself. IMO, the subject could possibly be covered in an article about a parent formation, although any additions would have to be mindful of WP:UNDUE. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator and AR. Anotherclown (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, it is somewhat peculiar that nom failed to respect my note that I was adding sources in a bit. He waited not even an hour an a half, which may be on the shy side of requisite wp:admin civility, especially given WP:NORUSH. I've now added the sources. As to nom's "otherstuff", I point him to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which clarifies that his pointing to other articles not existing is not a good argument for deletion. But rather one that we are urged to avoid making in an AfD discussion. We have to look at each article, and what he is pointing to is certainly not a wikipedia policy or guideline. But rather a few AfDs that are fact-specific, and have not gone through the proposal/discussion/review/consensus required to set wp policy and guidelines.

Furthermore, as nom likely is aware, other articles on other such companies do in fact exist on wikipedia (see, e.g., the articles with lesser RS coverage reflecting notability that we have for: United States Marine Corps Joint Assault Signals Company, 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company, 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, 4th Force Reconnaissance Company, 59th Quartermaster Company (United States), 119th Assault Helicopter Company, 253 Provost Company, 320th Military Police Company, 372nd Military Police Company (United States), 507th Maintenance Company, 601 Commando Company, 602 Commando Company, Company F, 425th Infantry, Military Police Special Service Company, Number 1 Armoured Car Company RAF, and Rifle Company Butterworth). In any event, the article now reflects sufficient RS coverage of this company (though the prior commentators did not have a chance to see the refs) to satisfy wp's general notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge: no independnat notability per WP:MILMOS/N and the listed precedents. It's ironic almost to offense that Epeefleche criticizes the nominator for WP:OTHERSTUFF by offering several precedents, then goes on to violate it blatently himself in his second paragraph. Apples to oranges in many of those links, especially the Force Recons and the 507th, which are quite clearly notable in and of themselves. The reference additions were not really substantive as I can tell; most of them seem to be about higher formations or lists of units, rather than the company itself, and mostly only go to establish that the company exists and its lineage, rather than proving it is independantly notable. The article also seems to contradict itself somewhat, first by detailing its combat history (with some officers that seem rather high-ranking to be serving in a signal company), then claims in the last paragraph that the unit was created on paper as a ghost unit for deception purposes! Was it a real unit formed in 1943 that fought in Europe, or what it a dummy unit concieved in 1944 and simply generated false radio traffic? bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you miss a couple of points. First, I wasn't hanging my hat on "other stuff" -- I was simply pointing out that (since the issue was raised by nom) other stuff does exist. Second, as the guideline points out, as a sole criterion "otherstuff" fails. That is what nom did. But when coupled with other reasons, it may well form part of a cogent rationale. I was certainly supplying other reasons. Third, unlike the real world, wikipedia does not work on precedents (though often I wish it did). Fourth, I gather I must revisit the article later today when I have a moment to address what no doubt was my poor drafting. The company both existed as a real 575th Signal Company (the ranks that you refer to were of people in the company), and as a notional 575th Signal Company (to mislead the Germans as to where the non-notional entity was--the hope was that the Germans would be deceived into moving its forces to the location that the notional force was ... with the notional 575th Signal Company sending messages that supported the belief that the US was massing its forces there). Fifth, a problem with an upmerge is that editors such as the first !voter above may well argue that it would be too much -- wp:undue. Sixth, this article has more RS support, IMHO, than each of the above-indicated articles about other companies.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you rather misinterpreted my rationale. I did not insinuate that OTHERSTUFF was the cruxt of your argument, simply expressed my anger that you could be so brazen in criticizing Buckshot and then trangress yourself. The nominator did not rely on OTHERSTUFF as a rationale, rather, he stated "separate, non-combat companies are not considered sufficent notable to merit their own articles" and pointed to precedent, which Wikipedia does recognize (perhaps not as a manner of policy, but as an argument in a centrallized discussion, yet, it has merit). An upmerge need not violate UNDUE if done carefully, which I think it can be easily.

I thank you for clarifying the point about the deception: that there was the real company and a deception company under the same name. Surely that can be made more clear in the article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being clear. OTHERSTUFF only applies where it is the crux of the argument, not where it is only a part of the argument. "Precedent" is other stuff, and that is the crux of what he relied on. I have to disagree with you about how precedent is viewed on wp ... this has been discussed many times throughout the project (and believe me, I am not wholly in favor of the project view, though I respect it). And let me clarify again -- inasmuch as I clearly (I thought it was clear) did not rely on other stuff as the crux of my rationale, the very terms of the policy make quite clear that to point to other stuff in such circumstances may well be completely appropriate -- not at all a "transgression". For policy, we look to more centralized discussions that is afforded by three AfDs, all brought by the nom here, with very limited community input in toto. That why in AfD arguments to avoid it is made clear that, while precedents may have an impact on an AfD, the fact that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable. I would be interested in Australia's comments as to whether all of this material could be maintained in an upmerge ... I'm not sure he would agree with you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Epeefleche's listing are almost exclusively separate combat companies, of which we have agreed on the notability. The others - including a sigs company, I see - are candidates for deletion themselves. This article needs to have its text split between the 75th Div article - where KOBLENZ could go - and, possibly other articles, but the company is not notable in of of itself. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find material coverage. KVIKountry (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hypothetically, one could get one other person to agree to a vague deletion criteria on a project page, get one related article 'A' deleted on those grounds, and then get B deleted on the strength of A's deletion, C deleted on the strength of A & B...Not 'sufficient' good policy. Link to the original discussion, please. Anarchangel (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) is in the deletion explanation request is that it includes a perma-link to the original discussion. Please read the linked AfDs - that's why they're there. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 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.