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 Corps. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NRA Corps (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)

Not significantly different from the existing page Corps to justify it's own page. See my standard justification below for more detail.

As part of the series of Guomindang military units:

My knowledge of the Guomindang military isn't quite at the level where I can say this for certain, (my academic interest focuses much more heavily on pre-gunpowder Chinese warfare) but as far as I can recall, there are no significant technical differences between the Guomindang army structure and that of the army structures western powers that backed the Guomindang at the time. Those western army structures are the basis for modern army structures. Considering the existence of the pages Platoon, Company (military unit), Regiment, ect., I can see reason to keep this page. There is not enough content as it is to currently justify this page, and sourcing, while available, will likely not be wholly on topic or add value to the coverage of the article. I doubt a redirect will be helpful, and there is not enough for a merge. Sven Manguard _Talk 07:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Sven Manguard _Talk 07:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: The page NRA Squad already redirects to Squad. The page NRA Division is significantly differnt from the others in the series in its level of detail, however the sourcing is slim and the content is hypertechincal. Sven Manguard _Talk 07:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to NRA Corps being deleted, it along with the NRA Division clarify the important difference in the quality of NRA Army formations from other standard Divisions and Corps as a result of the lack of artillery, and other support formations that occured after 1938. The few arsenals that the NRA had that could build and maintain feild artillery were overrun so the remaining feild artillery in particular was husbanded carefully, usually held at Army level or higher. Mortars, which the Chinese were still able to construct replaced feild artillery in lower level formations. Isolated from the cities other technical personel were in short supply so support units were also held at higher command levels. Asiaticus (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Corps. Not much here to establish independant notability. What few technical distinctions there are between western and Chinese corps formations can comfortably be explained in a subsection at the main article, just like that of every other nation. The referencing and content is way too thin for me to think that this is worthy of its own article, even a stub. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per Bahamut13. I've incorporated the ROC data in a section of the Corps page. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 14:30, 15 October 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.