Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regionally aligned force

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. L Faraone 00:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regionally aligned force

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

The article has very few cites. I did a search for news sources, and came up with very little. While this does appear to be something the US Army is developing, it doesn't seem to meet WP:notability standards.Casprings (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple sources revealed in a Google search, including this article from U.S. News & World Report, another from the Army Times, and some coverage from CNN. Definitely needs cleanup and probably trimming as well. I agree the article's current citations are weak, and if the article is kept they should be expanded to include some of this third party coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, it needs a lot of editing. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to History of the United States Army. Minor new policy initiative of the U.S. Army; the Army pumps out several of these per decade. Wikipedia does not actually need to replicate the official policy document on the issue, but the essentials can be placed (one line mentions, two line mentions) at History of the United States Army and Structure of the United States Army etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the nominator doesn't sign, does that merit a ~~Procedural Keep~~? Boogerpatrol (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. Now signed.Casprings (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, per the add'l sourcing found by Ginseng, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:IAR, and the personal learning I realized as considering my !vote, including following through on some of the links provided.Boogerpatrol (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:38, 27 May 2013 (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.