Paper organization : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Front organization , a closely related topic.  I could not find any coverage in reliable sources for "paper organization" in the sense described in this article.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a stub for future elaboration and referencing.  A paper organization can be a type of front, but it's not really a front for another group if it's just one or two people with a letterhead (or, these days, a web site).  If @ Carrite : were looking for some examples, he might look at the phantom armies in Military Deception or the imaginary spy rings in the Double Cross (XX) system in World War II, or.  on the political side, the discussion of Farmer Labor politics in 1923-4 in Irving Howe's and Lewis Coser's The American Communist Party: a critical history (Praeger:1957, 1962) pp. 122-5; "... the Communists were wildly, furiously, joyously at work concocting a pile of paper organizations which would send compliant cardboard delegates to the Chicago convention." (followed in the same chapter by a listing of some of those organizations).  @ Rjensen : —— Shakescene ( talk ) 18:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without prejudice - there seems to be little or nothing to support this article, or to justify the proposed redirect.  -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (or redirect or merge) - this can be useful, for example see First United States Army Group , a "paper army" from WWII.  - w o lf 02:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I suppose one might argue for deletion on DICTDEF grounds, although I believe the encyclopedia would be poorer for it.  It should absolutely not be rendered a redirect to Front organization , however, as a front group may be a concrete organization or a fantasy group with little more than an executive and a letterhead.  As is noted, there is a valid and different meaning for "paper organization" in a military context.  Both of these use cases are important, major concepts and I really don't see how deletion would be anything but pedantic.  Carrite ( talk ) 04:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — IAR.  The encyclopedia is better with the page than without it.  Carrite ( talk ) 04:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What does IAR mean please?  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 06:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Chidgk1 "IAR" refers to the policy, Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules .  —— Shakescene ( talk ) 19:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It it were still an option, Transwiki to Wiktionary .   I think I've found sufficient information to create the term in Wiktionary, but not enough to support a Wikipedia article.   See for instance, pg 57 of "Ambush Valley" ( link , requires free registration).  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've created a Wiktionary article at wikt:paper organization . --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Looking like no consensus but let’s give it one more relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Nagol0929 ( talk ) 00:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I had a look around too, and I agree with Cullen328 .   There's just not a coherent concept that the world has documented, here.   There are plenty of things listed as existing on paper only, but there's nothing anywhere that collects them and studies them as an actual single concept.  Uncle G ( talk ) 17:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Front organization .  This is a closely related topic that is not independently notable.  (Also glad to see User:Uncle G back!)  Reywas92 Talk 01:28, 26 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus