Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1349 Woking Squadron

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. Singularity 08:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1349 Woking Squadron

1349 Woking Squadron (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nomination. Expired PROD which was nominated with "This article is unsourced, seems to have little or no notability which i have specific understanding of given i am a member of the corps, contains information which is highly inaccurate, and seems to be mainly about advertising." This is borderline, and so I bring it here. I have no opinion. Black Kite 00:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability for this subgroup. JJL (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article itself does have some references, although they should be in-line and the article probably should be divided into sections to be less essay-like, but it does seem legitimately notable and consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on military topics. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment After looking at the 22 results, 3 are to wikipedia, 3 are to pages completely unrelated, 2 links are for a fund raising website which only has the squadron listed in a drop down menu and one link to another fundraising website which again is just from a list and one link is to a bebo account. That leaves 12 links which are directly related to the squadron. 3 are from the squadrons own website, 3 are simply advertisements, 1 is from a list of squadrons on the ATC website, and 2 are from similar lists from squadron websites, one is from a gliding squadron about a gilding allocation the squadron has and the last 2 are from a newsletter only at wing level. to me that doesnt seem to assert notability. A similar search on google does not provide any better sources. Seddon69 (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The Air Training Corps is a Youth organisation like the Scouts or the Boys Brigade. A single squadron is no more likely to be notable than a single Scout Troop or Boys Brigade Company. This has a few points, like the link trainer, but I still do not think it is notable enough. --Bduke (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As a member of this organisation this article contain highy inaccurate statements like: "The squadron also has its own tube shooting range. The rarity of having such a range means that Cadet units of all types come from across the area to use it." The information regading the link trainer can be easily put into the article regarding it. Besides that this article asserts no other information that shows notability. Seddon69 (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sub-organization. MrPrada (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources." Not seeing sources that establish individual notability of this squadron. Deor (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (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.