- 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. NORTH AMERICA 1000 04:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Task Force 1-41
- Task Force 1-41 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are several concerns here. Firstly I doubt the task force is notable. Two of the given references do not mention it at all, the other two only in passing, and I haven't been able to find better references. Secondly, the current content is largely unverifiable, based on the personal memory of an erstwhile member of the task force, and contains numerous inaccuracies and outright errors. It's also non-neutral, one-sidedly praising the unit's heroism while completely omitting other aspects, such as the various friendly fire incidents that made the unit suffer one in seven deaths by friendly fire among all US forces in the Gulf War. Given the inaccuracies I'm aware of, confirmed by the sources given in the article itself and a paper authored by the task force's commanding officer, I am reluctant to blindly accept as fact those parts I couldn't independently verify - and removing those parts would gut the article to the point of uselessness. For those reasons I propose redirecting the page to the parent unit, 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) (which, by the way, also was the parent unit of Task Forces 1-41 in various other conflicts that, for all I can tell, are unrelated to the one covered in the article). I implemented the redirect twice, with detailed explanations of these concerns, and was twice reverted without any improvement. Per WP:BLAR I'm bringing it here. Huon ( talk) 22:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I made some adjustments to the article. Yet, on the Valorous Unit Award Citation all of the TF Iron Units mentioned were indeed listed as being assigned to TF 1-41. So it also depends on the particular reference cited. Don Brunett ( talk) 22:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D ( talk) 22:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- redirect as this makes more sense as part of the parent unit. Also agree that fixing the article would gut it. BoonDock ( talk) 23:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Creating a
1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) article would be a superior outcome than redirecting to the article on the regiment. With a handful of exceptions, US infantry regiments no longer serve as "parent units" for battalions - the naming structure has been kept to preserve history, but there are no longer many regimental HQs.
Nick-D (
talk) 23:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- As a further comment, from digging into some sources the current content of this article conflates the battalion-size Task Force 1-41 with its parent brigade (designated Task Force Iron during the war). I've pinged the article creator to ask which formation they intended the article to cover. At present, I'm leaning towards keep as I've been able to dig up some significant coverage of the battalion and the brigade (based around the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Armored Division) should clearly be notable. Nick-D ( talk) 00:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The article regards a notable military unit different from 1-41. User:Lucifero4
- I've been asked to comment by Nick-D. Task Force 1st of the 41st Infantry, solely in its 1990-91 Gulf War service, is unquestionably notable. There will be acres of reliable sources available if people are willing to go beyond the internet (especially because of the "friendly fire" incident, which is another reason not to delete some mention of the unit that suffered it). To pull one book off my shelves, Dinackus's Order of Battle: Allied Ground Forces of Desert Storm, lists its company-company composition on page 4A-8, and as part of the 1st Inf Div (Mech) (3rd Bde, 2nd Armd filled in for the missing third bde of 1 ID(M) during the war) on page 4A-10. Much of the 'unverifiable' content can be verified by Lt Col Hillman's article, like TF Iron's first breech, which can seen on Hillman p.6. Using Hillman, and a few of the other sources, anyone willing to do the work could write a crackerjack article on a U.S. heavy battalion task force in Desert Storm. Given this, the best course of action is to merge the WP:V content with another article, which could be expanded at a later date. Depending on the length, it should be placed either in the existing 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) article, in the proper chronological order (which is the standard way of making sure such content can be found later), or we can consider creating a separate 1-41 INF article. So my vote would be Keep. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I have provided significant enough information to present my case that this was indeed a notable temporary unit. It breached the initial Iraqi defensive entrenchments. It was the first coalition unit to enter enemy territory. TF 1-41 was so valuable that it had the support of U.S. Army Special Forces and at least one brigade of the British 1st Armoured Division. It was also the only TF which earned a Valorous Unit Award.
Don Brunett (
talk) 19:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- Unfortunately Don, while I do not disagree with your vote, you are incorrect - as far as my sources go - about awarding of the VUA. Dinackus writes that '..virtually every manoeuvre battalion in the 1st and 3rd Armored Divisions, 1st Inf Div (M), and 2 ACR received the VUA,' as well as 'six of the ten VII Corps manoeuvre brigade headquarters that saw substantial combat against the Republican Guard received the VUA in contravention of the spirit, if not the letter, of AR672-5-1's guidance that '[o]nly on rare occasions will a unit larger than a battalion qualify for award of the VUA.' Both the entire 210th Field Artillery Brigade and 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigades received the VUA - Brigade HHBs and all battalions (Dinackus 2000, 14-4 & 14-5). Dinackus strongly implies that the VUA was awarded more than it should have been, and explicitly argues that awarding of the VUA varied according to formation, but there is no doubt that it was handed out widely after Desert Storm. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Dinackus is entitled to his opinion even if I don't agree with him.
Don Brunett (
talk) 23:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- His is not 'an opinion'. He cites the DAGOs, frequently. The VUA went to many, many, battalion task forces after Desert Storm, not just Task Force 1-41 Infantry. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Buckshot I also wanted to clarify that the VUA's for the other units were not listed specifically as being awarded to a particular Task Force. They were listed mostly on brigade level from what I read. It really does not matter as 7th Corps destroyed the world's 4th largest army in a week. Most were deserving of the award, imo. I am critical of some of these air artillery units receiving the award as Iraq had little air support.
Don Brunett (
talk) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- The point is they were awarded. IMO, three of the last four MOH winners did not deserve that particular award as well. We all have opinions. Did you serve Buckshot? If not your opinion means little to those of us who did. Don Brunett ( talk) 00:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- I should clearly note for anyone else reading this that my note above about the VUA in no way reduces the validity of this article or article contents on Wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry but a lot people are crossing some boundaries.--
Don Brunett (
talk) 00:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- Thank you for your kind words Don. Should you wish to keep getting support from people who do actually support the retention of this article, you might wish to consider reading WP:NPA. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies. Just frustrated. Don Brunett ( talk) 10:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment (was
Keep) I think it is bogus that this has been relisted. It's obvious most are in support of this remaining. I'm done debating and you are very close to losing any financial support you had from me. I mean a German administrator made this decision? LOL! My article has more correct information than half the articles on Wiki and from multiple sources to boot. Don Brunett ( talk) 17:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett
- Relisting is pretty routine, towards seeking more views, and AFDs are pretty slow processes. Also practice in Articles For Deletion process is to only "vote" once, so I changed "Keep" to "Comment" instead, for you, hope you don't mind. Oh, "Voting" does not restart after a relisting. And you are free to comment repeatedly. -- do ncr am 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There seem to be plenty of details in sources such as Operation Desert Storm. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. NORTH AMERICA 1000 04:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Task Force 1-41
- Task Force 1-41 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are several concerns here. Firstly I doubt the task force is notable. Two of the given references do not mention it at all, the other two only in passing, and I haven't been able to find better references. Secondly, the current content is largely unverifiable, based on the personal memory of an erstwhile member of the task force, and contains numerous inaccuracies and outright errors. It's also non-neutral, one-sidedly praising the unit's heroism while completely omitting other aspects, such as the various friendly fire incidents that made the unit suffer one in seven deaths by friendly fire among all US forces in the Gulf War. Given the inaccuracies I'm aware of, confirmed by the sources given in the article itself and a paper authored by the task force's commanding officer, I am reluctant to blindly accept as fact those parts I couldn't independently verify - and removing those parts would gut the article to the point of uselessness. For those reasons I propose redirecting the page to the parent unit, 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) (which, by the way, also was the parent unit of Task Forces 1-41 in various other conflicts that, for all I can tell, are unrelated to the one covered in the article). I implemented the redirect twice, with detailed explanations of these concerns, and was twice reverted without any improvement. Per WP:BLAR I'm bringing it here. Huon ( talk) 22:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I made some adjustments to the article. Yet, on the Valorous Unit Award Citation all of the TF Iron Units mentioned were indeed listed as being assigned to TF 1-41. So it also depends on the particular reference cited. Don Brunett ( talk) 22:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D ( talk) 22:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- redirect as this makes more sense as part of the parent unit. Also agree that fixing the article would gut it. BoonDock ( talk) 23:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Creating a
1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) article would be a superior outcome than redirecting to the article on the regiment. With a handful of exceptions, US infantry regiments no longer serve as "parent units" for battalions - the naming structure has been kept to preserve history, but there are no longer many regimental HQs.
Nick-D (
talk) 23:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- As a further comment, from digging into some sources the current content of this article conflates the battalion-size Task Force 1-41 with its parent brigade (designated Task Force Iron during the war). I've pinged the article creator to ask which formation they intended the article to cover. At present, I'm leaning towards keep as I've been able to dig up some significant coverage of the battalion and the brigade (based around the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Armored Division) should clearly be notable. Nick-D ( talk) 00:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The article regards a notable military unit different from 1-41. User:Lucifero4
- I've been asked to comment by Nick-D. Task Force 1st of the 41st Infantry, solely in its 1990-91 Gulf War service, is unquestionably notable. There will be acres of reliable sources available if people are willing to go beyond the internet (especially because of the "friendly fire" incident, which is another reason not to delete some mention of the unit that suffered it). To pull one book off my shelves, Dinackus's Order of Battle: Allied Ground Forces of Desert Storm, lists its company-company composition on page 4A-8, and as part of the 1st Inf Div (Mech) (3rd Bde, 2nd Armd filled in for the missing third bde of 1 ID(M) during the war) on page 4A-10. Much of the 'unverifiable' content can be verified by Lt Col Hillman's article, like TF Iron's first breech, which can seen on Hillman p.6. Using Hillman, and a few of the other sources, anyone willing to do the work could write a crackerjack article on a U.S. heavy battalion task force in Desert Storm. Given this, the best course of action is to merge the WP:V content with another article, which could be expanded at a later date. Depending on the length, it should be placed either in the existing 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) article, in the proper chronological order (which is the standard way of making sure such content can be found later), or we can consider creating a separate 1-41 INF article. So my vote would be Keep. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I have provided significant enough information to present my case that this was indeed a notable temporary unit. It breached the initial Iraqi defensive entrenchments. It was the first coalition unit to enter enemy territory. TF 1-41 was so valuable that it had the support of U.S. Army Special Forces and at least one brigade of the British 1st Armoured Division. It was also the only TF which earned a Valorous Unit Award.
Don Brunett (
talk) 19:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- Unfortunately Don, while I do not disagree with your vote, you are incorrect - as far as my sources go - about awarding of the VUA. Dinackus writes that '..virtually every manoeuvre battalion in the 1st and 3rd Armored Divisions, 1st Inf Div (M), and 2 ACR received the VUA,' as well as 'six of the ten VII Corps manoeuvre brigade headquarters that saw substantial combat against the Republican Guard received the VUA in contravention of the spirit, if not the letter, of AR672-5-1's guidance that '[o]nly on rare occasions will a unit larger than a battalion qualify for award of the VUA.' Both the entire 210th Field Artillery Brigade and 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigades received the VUA - Brigade HHBs and all battalions (Dinackus 2000, 14-4 & 14-5). Dinackus strongly implies that the VUA was awarded more than it should have been, and explicitly argues that awarding of the VUA varied according to formation, but there is no doubt that it was handed out widely after Desert Storm. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Dinackus is entitled to his opinion even if I don't agree with him.
Don Brunett (
talk) 23:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- His is not 'an opinion'. He cites the DAGOs, frequently. The VUA went to many, many, battalion task forces after Desert Storm, not just Task Force 1-41 Infantry. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Buckshot I also wanted to clarify that the VUA's for the other units were not listed specifically as being awarded to a particular Task Force. They were listed mostly on brigade level from what I read. It really does not matter as 7th Corps destroyed the world's 4th largest army in a week. Most were deserving of the award, imo. I am critical of some of these air artillery units receiving the award as Iraq had little air support.
Don Brunett (
talk) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- The point is they were awarded. IMO, three of the last four MOH winners did not deserve that particular award as well. We all have opinions. Did you serve Buckshot? If not your opinion means little to those of us who did. Don Brunett ( talk) 00:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- I should clearly note for anyone else reading this that my note above about the VUA in no way reduces the validity of this article or article contents on Wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry but a lot people are crossing some boundaries.--
Don Brunett (
talk) 00:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
- Thank you for your kind words Don. Should you wish to keep getting support from people who do actually support the retention of this article, you might wish to consider reading WP:NPA. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies. Just frustrated. Don Brunett ( talk) 10:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment (was
Keep) I think it is bogus that this has been relisted. It's obvious most are in support of this remaining. I'm done debating and you are very close to losing any financial support you had from me. I mean a German administrator made this decision? LOL! My article has more correct information than half the articles on Wiki and from multiple sources to boot. Don Brunett ( talk) 17:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett
- Relisting is pretty routine, towards seeking more views, and AFDs are pretty slow processes. Also practice in Articles For Deletion process is to only "vote" once, so I changed "Keep" to "Comment" instead, for you, hope you don't mind. Oh, "Voting" does not restart after a relisting. And you are free to comment repeatedly. -- do ncr am 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There seem to be plenty of details in sources such as Operation Desert Storm. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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.