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 redirect to Louisiana Army National Guard. this falls as an article so for the test case this has to be a delete but there is a clear consensus to redirect and that seems a sensible compromise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

215th Army Band (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This is a test case for numbered U.S. Army bands, non-combat sub-units of no more than 50. In accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States), which established that non-combat separate companies are not notable, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron, which established that non-combat air force ground support squadrons are not notable, these units, I believe, are not individually notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I deprodded this, because my quick impression was that some army bands may be notable on their own by meeting WP:N, where i wouldn't expect something like the 722nd Ordnance Company to get the same amount of coverage. I saw that some sources about this particular army band do exist but haven't been added to the article yet. If some bands are not independently notable, maybe there is a place where a merger can take place.--Milowent (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Massachusetts National Guard, the major command. I understand the reason for nomination, however I believe redirecting these types of articles is a better option than deletion as it a) preserves the history and b) discourages recreation. Movementarian (Talk) 09:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should I add a one-sentence mention to Massachusetts National Guard and redirect? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, mentioning them in the main article seems like a good idea to me. Movementarian (Talk) 13:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above. The band itself is not notable as a military unit, and since military bands tend to be high-visibility (almost civil relations), they get coverage in the local papers when they visit. I can't judge their notability as a band, however, perhaps we can ask WikiProject Marching band? bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: not large enough, I think, to satisfy WP:GNG, however, it is probably a possibly search term so redirect makes sense, I feel. In this case to the Mass National Guard. — AustralianRupert (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2010 (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.