Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd Battalion 41st Infantry Regiment

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 merge to 41st Infantry Regiment (United States). Davewild (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Battalion 41st Infantry Regiment

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

Small military unit, unsourced. To my opinion a non-notable unit without a serious claim for fame The Banner talk 23:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - alternatively redirect to 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) Gbawden (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect to 41st Infantry Regiment (United States). Battalion-sized units are generally considered to be notable (see WP:MILUNIT). They are certainly not "small" - they are considered to be "major units". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- An essay? The Banner talk 14:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - An essay, yes, but one that's widely accepted by those who write military articles on Wikipedia as a scan of AfD discussions, where it is often quoted and usually taken as binding, will show you. And if you think a battalion is small or insignificant you clearly don't know a large amount about military affairs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent regiment. Intothat darkness 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no way that a US combat battalion that's seen combat in four or five wars isn't going to have received sufficient coverage to be independently notable. The nominator doesn't appear to have bothered to look for any coverage before starting this discussion, and calling a roughly 1000-strong unit "small" isn't well informed. Note that US infantry battalions have been independent of their nominal parent regiments since the 1960s, since which time this battalion has fought in three wars. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that US infantry battalions are effectively independent, but if this is going to be kept as a standalone article (and I would actually prefer that it was) then 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) needs some work as info shouldn't be duplicated or divided between articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know military units are supposed to fight in wars. So actually fighting a war is not special for a military unit. The Banner talk 09:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - historic unit that started out as segregated (black) regiment; there is enough information to support its own article and not be merged with 41st Infantry Regiment. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we're going to start spinning articles down to the battalion and squadron level, pulling history from the parent regiment prior to the early 1960s comes close to SYNTH in my view. We're really looking at two different kinds of unit history based on the way the Army does lineage. Intothat darkness 20:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent regiment. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 41st Infantry Regiment per WP:MILUNIT, because as we go down to squadron and battalion groups, it would not be notable enough to have an article on it.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 15:48, 13 June 2015 (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.