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 keep. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satgas Atbara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable unit from Indonesian Air Force. One of only two references is from a non-RS site (per article's own talk page). If all that can be said about this unit is the same two sentences repeated on specialoperations.com, it fails WP:N and should be deleted. Declined CSD and prod removed immediately for incorrect reason: "Prod declined. Not elegible for Prod b/c already sent to CSD and CSD was declined. If you feel it is not notable, send to AfD. However, don't practice Americanisms: if this were a U.S. unit it stay?" (and to answer the question asked by removing PRODed, I don't care where the unit is from, it is still unnotable) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator seems to have a particular penchant about getting rid of this article. I declined the Speedy and Prod because there are currently two refs and an EL (which is actually a book, easily considered a non-trivial source), so it already meets notability requirements, and a quick check of google shows that there are plenty of other sources (I'll be adding a few myself) that can be drawn upon, showing that this is a candidate for growth and expansion, not deletion. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One ref I address in the nom, and was noted on the talk page by a neutral editor of such articles to be non-WP:RS. The book had a two sentence mention, the same as this article has just worded differently. The second book listed in the EL also just has the same two statements. That isn't significant coverage, its little more than a directory listing. Also, as you work heavily in military articles, isn't it a little inappropriate, as an admin, for you to remove the CSD and PROD tags anyway? Seems less than neutral. e-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're at 3 refs and 6 ELs, and counting. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those ELs aren't very good, and please remember that EL != ref storage nor is it a place to store links because they don't meet WP:RS. One link is someone's personal photo gallery (not appropriate), another is a personal website (ditto). Also, the number of ELs has nothing to do with notability. I could easily flood an article with ELs about myself, it wouldn't make me a notable topic for an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OK, this unit is an Indonesian Special Forces, Counter-terrorist force. By its very nature, it of note. It is in the top tier Indonesian Military ORBAT. If it was from the USA or Europe, no one would be flagging it up. This highlights the problem of editors who do not maintain a NPOV and do not look at subjects on an international basis. It must be Kept (Archangel1 (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Note - Archangel1 is the article creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest putting some effort into demonstrating notability, the designation does not automagically confer it.ALR (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, whilst there isn't much content there I have a feeling this is a little hasty, giving the article less than 12 hours is taking the p!ss. One might see the enthusiasm for removal quite uncharitably if one was so inclined. the article has potential, but it really is up to the originator to put some effort into demonstrating notability. This process gives him some days to achieve that however I thought I'd make a statement now to caution against a sudden surge and closing under WP:SNOW. That said, if there is no discernible improvement during the course of the discussion I might be tempted to change my opinion. ALR (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the subject is mentioned in a book titled "The Rescuers: The World's Top Anti-Terrorist Units". As one of the "Top Anti-Terrorist Units" the article should stay. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you own the book? Can you show that it is, again, not another two sentence mention when the book lists than "the hostage rescue units of more than fifty nations." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - 98 ghits... most being wiki review type sites re: this is up for deletion. My main issue with this article is that yes, it does exist, but nothing notable has happened, specifically, with regard to this subject. The reason there are oodles of American units and bases is because things have happened to make them notable. Sorry. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw I'd disagree that the majority of US units have done much notable, on the other hand there tends to be a lot of documentary material about them which in the wacky world of Wikipedia seems to give them inherent notability. That's more a criticism of Wikipedia than anything else. Unfortunately given the nature of this topic authoritative and informed sources are quite difficult to get hold of, and some of them aren't even online *shock horror* ;) . I would hope that if Archangel1 takes the time to respond to your point by demonstrating notability then you'll reconsider.

ALR (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by all means... I'll be the first to say that the 5 man outpost in Bumfuck, USA does not deserve an article. Unfortunately, the sheer number of posts vs. notable things either a) a person from there has done or b) something the base has done is comparatively large. There is just... nothing I can find that is notable about this particular base. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 17:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I have significant discomfort with the indescent haste and fervency with which this is being pursued.ALR (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, especially on the "haste" part. Nominator referred to WP:N, but that policy says "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or..." and lists 3 things that should be done, none of which is to doggedly pursue deletion through three different methods all on the same morning. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I started this page (and others) in the hope that it would contributed to by others. An article of this nature is a victim of language and is need of help from an Indonesian speaker. There is limited English text material on this subject and so I can only source so much but that does not detract from the usefulness of this article (Archangel1 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
• Comment - it has come to my attention that the article Bravo-90 Detachment refers to the same unit, so if the decision is "keep", the two should be merged. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the same unit, I'd support merging this article into that one. Although it is also unsourced, it has more information that would support the likely hood of additional sources (and perhaps under that name, one might find more sources for it). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If it's a bunch of Indonesians, why should we Americans care about it, right? I don't think there's such a thing as an "unnotable unit" of any nation's armed forces. Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on it having two articles? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sometimes happens that two authors cover the same topic independently. With Akradecki's additions, the two articles should be merged; I'd then make Satgas Atbara a redirect to Bravo-90 Detachment since the latter seems to be the official name. But the persons most familiar with the subject know best on that. Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sounds like an issue of hard-to-find refs. I say keep it around, see if it's the same unit as mentioned above (if so, merge) and see if we can't get a local to contrib. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrefron (talk • contribs) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability does not appear to be an issue; passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are enough references to establish notability and this isn't a sub-unit of a larger unit so WP:ORG is met. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP Indonesia project has a large number of articles all having an issue with WP:RS due to a very low level of apparent competency by editors with non web sourced information - on that basis alone any article up for Xfd from outsiders perceptions are going to always appear problematic on this matter alone. SatuSuro 04:44, 22 August 2008 (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.