Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AR 635-200

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. No prejudice against a redirect being created. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AR 635-200[edit]

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

Article does not in my opinion, meet the criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia, specifically Notability. There is not, and I believe cannot be significant independent coverage of a regulation. The notable exception would be the DADT policy, which is only notable because of the public interest of issues it dealt with. A user removed the Prod tag, with reason, but I don't believe it is in line with policy. The subject may be of interest, indeed, I found it because I was searching for the subject, but interest does not mean the article should exist. I would accept a merger, but I dont think an article about military regulations would be notable as well. Should it be an article on all service regulations worldwide (as we shouldnt make it US centric) What regulations should be covered? Enlistment regulations would be of interest, medical regulations, security regulations, ect. It would open a huge can of worms. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: May the content be sensibly merged into Military discharge? (Incidentally, Military discharge is 99% US-specific, so may need to be renamed...). -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment" Possibly, but while the act of military discharge is interesting, there is no claim of notability, and the lack of third party sources is in indicator that the subject may not meet the general notability guideline. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; perhaps an external link to AR 635-200 can be left at the Military discharge article if it isn't there already, this article be Deleted, and a redirect be left in its place to Military discharge#United States. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a directory of obscure bureaucratic regulations. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2012 (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.