Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/308th Infantry Regiment (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 Keep per WP:SNOW. It's fair to say that this article isn't in good shape at present, but it's new and there's a clear consensus that it covers a notable topic. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

308th Infantry Regiment (United States)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Seems to be mostly WP:OR with no sources to back-up claims JMHamo (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is obviously a historical entity we talk about already Lost_Battalion_(World_War_I)#Units_involved. Sources are definitely available, including offline. I don't see anything that looks unbelievable in the article as it is. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 21:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Infantry Regiments are considered notable. Reasonably famous unit due to the Lost Battalion. Plenty of sources available. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per:

"Lost Battallion". The Columbia Encyclopedia – via Questia (subscription required) .
Kingseed, Cole C. (November 2010). "The Fighting Doughboys of the American Expeditionary Forces". Army – via Questia (subscription required) . 60 (11). United States Army: 45.
Cameron, Cameron (Winter 2009). "Monument Unveils Legend of 'Lost Battalion'". Warrior - Citizen – via Questia (subscription required) . 54 (1). United States Army: 40.
Johnson, Thomas M.; Pratt, Fletcher (2000). The Lost Battalion. University of Nebraska Press – via Questia (subscription required) . ISBN 0-8032-7613-3.

Etc., etc. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this can be closed per WP:SNOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProgrammingGeek (talk • contribs) 03:19, 27 March 2016 (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.