Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VC C23 Company

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 deleted. Consensus is clear. No prejudice against future creation of a list article to which all such titles can be redirected, if properly sourced. bd2412 T 15:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VC C23 Company

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

This 30-man Viet Cong unit is unreferenced and doesn't seem to have accomplished anything particularly notable. I see one passing mention in this book. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for essentially the same reasons:

According to its article, VC C41 fought in the Battle of Binh Ba, but is not mentioned there.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company is well below the threshold in WP:MILUNIT. Unless there is significant sourcing on these companies (which does not seem to be the case), they should not have a stand-alone entry - the parent formation might merit inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very few companies would justify an article, with the obvious exception of Easy Company from Band of Brothers. Generally, battalions yes, companies no. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Companies only with significant importance or that played a major role in some war are acceptable to have an article. Also this article hardly has any references to establish the subject's notability, fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjects fails MILUNIT and GNG. I see no sense in keeping standalone articles for these units. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Australian official history of the Australian Army's role in South Vietnam has lots of material on the Viet Cong local forces in Phuoc Tuy Province, and other works have also covered them (including, from memory, a Vietnamese official history - though it may not be a RS), so an article on the topic would be highly viable. I agree though that the individual companies are unlikely to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder if there is a parent article that the information on the VC companies could be merged to. Individually, I agree they probably don't warrant stand alone articles, but the overarching topic is notable, IMO. I found this article: Viet Cong and PAVN strategy, organization and structure, but it wouldn't seem an appropriate merge target. I wonder about List of Viet Cong Local Force companies ... thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MILUNIT and fails WP:GNG. Created seven years ago and still remain without even single unreliable source –Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2017 (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.

Already deleted Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]