Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War Division

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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War Division[edit]

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

No sources, no sign of any such organization online, title is very ambiguous, article is written with absolutely no context or explanation. Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google searching for "War Division" returns nothing, but searching for "War Division"+alien gets us some promising results. Remarkably, here [1]. Will try to search it more in-depth after lunch =P (though if we agree to keep it, it needs some urgent cleanup) ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to United States Department of Justice War Division. After a quick comparison between the article and the record from archives.org, it's clear they treat of the same subject, which proves this article is not a hoax. It is indeed a subdivision of the DoJ which was active for only a couple years. Of course, the text needs some heavy cleaning to become an encyclopedic article, but it's not a case for deletion. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The revised title sounds much less ambiguous, I applaud your research; I guess if you have time to write this yourself then be my guest. Be sure to include some context though. :) --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ^^ ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The rename and the rewrite makes it much clearer what this organisation was. Coverage is behind pay walls, but this example from the NY Times has the formation of the division as the headline for the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now a legitimate topic for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: the nominator's concerns have been addressed, and I don't think it's likely to generate any opposition now. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States Department of Justice#History, where the text fills out a tiny bit of the total lack of info about the DoJ in World War II. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to section stated by Buckshot06. Article is presently stub, and although notable is part of a larger organization. A subsection of aforementioned section can be created that documents this sub-organization. If the size of the information becomes sufficiently large using reliable sources it can be spunout. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with merging this one to the main article, but it... looks like it was already done... ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ [talk] 06:24, 15 March 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.