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. I realize it's a bit early to close, but this is going the way of WP:SNOW. Also, I was the admin that declined the speedy nom of Sephiroth's in the first place, and can now totally see his point of view. Keeper | 76 13:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

40th Military Police Detachment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Proposing deletion for 40th Military Police Detachment. Article is of minimal if any notability. There are many military units in the US Military, not to mention the world wide military, not every unit needs an article, just because it has a history. Consider also that this unit is a detachment, not even a Battalion, Brigade, or other large unit that would generally be considered notable. This is not to denigrate a smaller unit that has historical or modern significance. As an example, Seal Team Six is notable because of the caliber of its personnel, the missions it's conducted, ect. Not simply because of its existence, although as a Special Operations unit, that in my mind may make it notable in the absence of other information. Finally, I believe this article does not mean the general notability guideline, which is the standard for inclusion on a WP:MILHIST article; because it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I cannot verify that this is the correct unit, the only MPD listed on the Sill website is [1] 34th MPD, this may be the re-designated unit mentioned in the article, but even the page does not state the original name of the unit, indicating to me that it wasn't considered important. Most military units will note name changes in their histories. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of United States Army Military Police Units. Subject has received a few passing mentions in non-primary reliable sources, however in reviewing them none appear to be significant coverage of the subject, nor do they add up to something that would be considered significant coverage; therefore, the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. As a detachment it does not appear that the unit can operate independently like a FST, so I doubt it passes WP:MILUNIT.

All that being said, the subject is a Military Police Unit, and there is already a list for that. So a redirect to such a list appears to be a logical solution. If the subject of this article received significant coverage in the future, this article can always be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was going to agree, but I think, what is the likelihood that the redir is necessary? What are the chances that someone comes to WP and types that unit into the search bar? I would certainly agree with the unit being listed on that page, but so many red links... (and rightfully so.) I've always hated seeing a blue link, clicking and being redir'ed back to the same location. Suggest deletion and adding to the list if it is not already listed? Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could perfectly possibly be searched for or linked from another article, so if we don't keep it (and I'm neutral here) then it should at least be redirected. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• no significant links. [2] Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States). These type of subunits have been judged not notable, and there are about eight AfDs for Army and Air Force sub-units like this. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet GNG or MILUNIT. We are talking about a platoon-strength sub-unit here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally non-notable, and no likelihood that people will search for this obscure sub-unit. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2013 (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.