Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2407 Yateley & Eversley Squadron (ATC)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete. --Daniel Olsen 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 2407 Yateley & Eversley Squadron (ATC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Does not meet criteria for inclusion per WP:ORG -Nv8200p talk 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup - this article covers a specific division/unit/brigade. If we are going to apply locality as a benchmark as proposed by a previous comment, then what is stopping us from removing NYPD due to its regional importance (ie. in Boston, the NYPD doesn't effect me). This article needs a cleanup, but otherwise it does not warrant deletion. Jackhamm 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Air Training Corps, this is a local group and not appropriete for wiki. meshach 04:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup- there are other Air Cadet units that have articles; this one has merely been hit by an overzealous editor. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmmh. This is the second or third ATC unit I've seen listed for deletion; I'm really not sold that any of them are notable at all, and especially not the way this article's presented. Shimgray | talk | 11:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, local branch with nothing to distiguish itself or provide notability of its own. The listing of people and their ranks smacks of WP:VAIN. Nuttah68 13:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete for reasons stated. Half of article is about uniform, which is common to all ATC units anyway. Emeraude 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per meschach, although I'm not convinced that the individual squadrons couldn't be part of a list somewhere. Carom 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What use is a redirect? Does anyone seriously think that '2407 Yateley & Eversley Squadron (ATC)' is going to be typed in by a Wikipedia user? Emeraude 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't think it's out of the question, and I don't like to assume that I know the interests of all potential users - plus redirects aren't exactly huge consumers of space, and I don't see any reason not to redirect users interested in this particular fomation to the article on the overarching structure.Carom 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, do not redirect. This is an unnotable training squadron, not even an active-duty military unit, of which we have few on Wikipedia. Fails WP:ORG utterly. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for information of non-UK readers: No, it's not a training squadron and there is no way it can be an active-duty military unit - it's not a part of the RAF. The ATC is a youth organisation like the Scouts, but centred on the air force. Discussion should be be around whether branches of youth groups such as Scouts, Boys Brigade, Army Cadets etc should have articles and what qualifies or disqualifies each from an article. Emeraude 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not-notable and unverifiable. Energy put into this article should instead be redirected to Air Cadet Organisation, Combined Cadet Force and / or Air Training Corps who are large enough to be verifiable( I don't get the relationship between them ) Drunken Pirate 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:22, 8 December 2006 (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.