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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

101st Chemical Company (United States)[edit]

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

Recent discussion at WT:MILHIST concluded [1] that separate company level subunits that are not capable of independent combat action are not notable. Several deletions and Prods have taken place in line with this, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States). This this subunit is being nominated for deletion. Buckshot06(prof) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete trivial operations, trivial awards, as is usual of support companies. If one should ever actually do something notable, then that one might be notable, but I haven't seen an example here yet. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 21:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I supported the original proposed deletion, basing my support on WP:CORP criteria. I'm not aware of any specific inclusion criteria that might apply to a US military company. I've asked WP:MIL if they could look at the article and give their opinion. I suspect that DGG is correct in his evaluation of the article. -- Atama頭 21:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was the most exensive coverage I could find, but it takes more than routine coverage of a unit homecoming to establish notability. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. As with most support service sub-units, this unit is not automatically notable (though should it become so, an article would be welcome). EyeSerene^talk 08:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Nothing to indicate notability here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:54, 7 October 2009 (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.