Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organic unit

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 Military organization#Commands, formations, and units. There is no real consensus for any outcome but I'm going to use administrative/closer's discretion and close this as a Redirect. Content is in the page history if anyone cares to Merge its content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organic unit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

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

Unreferenced stub, with a request for references since 2011. One broken footnote to a general search. My BEFORE suggests this is a generic term used in various fields, and I can't confirm that there is a specific use of this in military. Our article fails

WP:V. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I created the article because I came across the term in a military context and had some difficulty figuring out what it meant, so wanted to make things easier for the next person. The term isn't uniquely military (I guess it falls under 2b at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic) but I can't remember the last time I saw it used outside the military context.

I didn't have the knowledge to create more than a stub, and was hoping people with more of a military background might expand on that. Evidently that didn't happen. I have no objections to deletion if nobody has an appetite to expand it. Calair (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Italian Wikipedia article from the inter-language links looks quite comprehensive with a total of 80 references.
Left guide (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WT:ITALY I guess? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, that it.wiki article fully corresponds to
military unit. Apparently organic unit is a generic concept and most uses are not related to military organisation, so maybe we could create a redirect from "Organic unit (military)" to "military unit". There are some occurances in the field of military studies and organisation, e.g., this 1953 U.S. Army Reserve regulation, "Organic unity. – A unit assigned to and forming an integral part of a military organization". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps we should have an article on the concept of
WP:TNT might be a better approach? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Merging into the Commands, formations, and units section of military organization, with a redirect, might be the best approach. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term is actually pretty common in US military stuff, and normally refers to a smaller unit that's permanently assigned to a larger unit. So the 1st MP Company would be considered organic to the 1st Infantry Division. Official histories use the term quite often. Intothat darkness 14:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term is widely used, and was easy to add a reference to. So
WP:V are not issues. The issue as I see is that it is unlikely to be much more than what is there now. If that is enough for an article, then it can be kept. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, nobody wants to keep, so this is probably going to be deleted if nobody can come up with an alternative such as merging or redirecting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one has voted to delete, either. Since it's a widely used term, deleting it makes little sense. I'd say Weak Keep at this time. Intothat darkness 18:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ITSPOPULAR? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I think you mean

Wikipedia:POPULARPAGE? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a standard military term, commonly used in official histories to describe subordinate units that are part of a larger unit's organizational structure as opposed to a unit that's attached for a particular operation. Its use is easily confirmed, so the original delete rationale doesn't make much sense. @Hawkeye7 commented on this as well. Intothat darkness 11:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be a redirect to a suitable glossary article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge "Organic unit (military)" to "military unit" as an AtD. If it's a standard military term, perhaps we redirect to a suitable glossary article. BusterD (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify one target article with a link? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested adding it to Military organization#Commands, formations, and units Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 6 April 2024 (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.