Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105th Military Police 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

105th Military Police Company (United States)[edit]

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

This nomination is the result of a Proposed Deletion potentially frivolously removed by User:Inniverse. As a result of the removed proposed delete, I am repeating here that separate military police companies are not considered notable, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/118th Military Police Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/54th Military Police Company (United States) Buckshot06 (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete or upmerge to higher command. No evidence of notability sufficient for a company-sized unit in the US military. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The unit served in SFOR 6 the NATO mission in Bosnia in 1999 and 2000, the World Trade Center disaster on September 11, 2001 and in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 at FOB Kalsu. This Military Police Company is notable, and is a good candidate to be expanded into an excellent article. Inniverse (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does every individual military unit merit its own article? I don't know, but I'm not inclined to say so, especially as what's available on it is so small, and mostly from government (ie, non-independent) sources. My belief is that the 53rd Troop Command article is small enough that (along the lines of Wikipedia:Product#Chains_and_franchises) this article should be merged into 53rd Troop Command. --YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my searches so far I can't find enough sources to indicate to me that this company is notable by itself. Happy to change my mind if such sourcing could be found and notability demonstrated. Mentions of the unit could be made in either an article on the 102nd Military Police Battalion (if sourcing is available), or in 53rd Troop Command (but being mindful of not breaching WP:UNDUE). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although the service history of this unit makes it interesting (to me at least), especially its involvingment in the response to the World Trade Centre attrocity I still don't think it meets WP:NOTABILITY. As such it is not possible to justify its own entry on wikipedia IMO. Article should be moved into an article on the 102nd Military Police Battalion (which I don't think exists yet). Anotherclown (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with eirtehr NY national guard or 53Rd A single company is not notable enough for its own article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^prattle 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precedent set by the numerous previous AfD's on articles with similar topics (see nom for links). Non-combat separate companies are not normally considered notable. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 19:08, 17 August 2010 (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.