Talk:Distribution Liaison Company
Merge suggestion
[edit]It has been noted that individual companies are too small of a unit for their own page (unless there is some special notability). In this case, it is appropriate to upmerge to its battalion — 4th Supply Battalion. Unless there is discussion to the contrary, I will redirect to the Battalion article in 3 days. — ERcheck (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, it will not be merged. EVERY Marine unit has special notability. --Death before dishonor (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Take it easy there buddy. DLC is not notable in and of itself. The article is much better suited as a section within the 4th Supply Battalion article. Remember Wikipedia is not the Marine Corps. Different set of rules and policies apply. I agree that the article should be merged.--Looper5920 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Definately merge and redirect, based on the notability guidelines. If we really need to, we could nominate this at WP:AFD. The supporting logic is that as much as we love the Corps and would like to have an article for every Marine, unit, and facet of USMC life, that's simply not possible because few outside of the Marine Corps would find any encyclopedic value in an article about 2nd Squad, 1st Platoon, Company I, 3rd Battalion 7th Marines, or Building 4814 at MCAS Cherry Point. bahamut0013♠♣ 22:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Take it easy there buddy. DLC is not notable in and of itself. The article is much better suited as a section within the 4th Supply Battalion article. Remember Wikipedia is not the Marine Corps. Different set of rules and policies apply. I agree that the article should be merged.--Looper5920 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
At this point, there seems to be consensus that the 4th Supply Battalion article is the right place to include information about the Distribution Liaison Company. Merging, to maintain the history of the contribution, is the preferable approach versus deletion. — ERcheck (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd feel more comfortable getting more than 4 editors' input before I declare discussion over. 3 vs 1 seems a bit inconclusive to me. Seeing as just about every Marine Wikipedian I know has chimed in (ERcheck and Looper), perhaps you can invite the input of some more editors? bahamut0013♠♣ 19:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose there is no point in waiting. I'll merge it. bahamut0013♠♣ 11:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)