Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineer combat group

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 with Combat engineering. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer combat group

Unreferenced orphan stub article that as been tagged as dubious for over a year now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Combat engineering... from what I read that would be the most logical action... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Once one gets rid of the dubious material, what is there left to merge? As an orphan article, I see no need to simply turn it into a redirect, which would be the effect of a merge of the current article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the material is dubious. Engineer combat groups were active until at least the 1980s, though they were usually titled just 'Engineer Groups' by that time. If you want a reference to Engineer groups, use David Isby & Charles Kamps Jr, Armies of NATO's Central Front, Jane's, 1985, but for the WW 2 version I'd need to do checking around. In my view, merging all the material to the Combat engineering article would be wisest. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 09:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm not saying that there is/was no such a thing as an engineer combat group. However, other that the dubious and unreferenced piece of information that John C. H. Lee was responsible for the establishment of engineer combat groups in World War II, there's not anything to salvage of the current article. That's not to say a good article or even a good stub article couldn't be be written, but in its current state, this ain't it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - appears distinct from Combat Engineering. 413 google book hits, many of which seem to show that it was not only a designation on many units but a distinct and notable unit type. From "Battle Bridges: Combat River Crossings : World War II (2004) by John B. Wong" an Engineering combat group is a type of Engineering group with a specific mission. It appears to be an organizational unit often of approximately regimental size (at least in the Battle of the Bulge). good scholarly articles on the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 03:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)... Change to Redirect to Combat engineering based on the dubiousness of the information. Someone can revert a write a proper article in the future - Peripitus (Talk) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a worthwhile subject of an encyclopedic article, but since there was only a seven word change in the 16 months between being tagged as "dubious" and being tagged for AfD (and the change happened just before the latter tagging). It is unreferenced, and (omitting the contested material) virtually void of useful information. Redirect to Combat engineering until someone has the time to develop an article more substantial (and with more citations) than the current one. B.Wind (talk) 04:08, 12 July 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.