Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/804SQN (AAFC)

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 per snow. PeaceNT 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 804SQN (AAFC)

804SQN (AAFC) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

While the article needs a lot of work and breaches WP:V, WP:COI, WP:SPAM and probably many others, I am nominating it for deletion as I am unsure if there is consensus on the notability of miltary cadet units, particularly Australian ones. Mattinbgn/ talk 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Australian or whatever, previous debates have held that individual units of youth organisations are not notable of themselves. Emeraude 11:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/55 Squadron ATC and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Naval Cadet Traning Ship Norfolk (plus others I cannot recall at this time), I'd say notability is highly doubtful, unless the cadet group can prove through the use of sources independant of the cadet group or its immediate locality that they've done something of earth-shattering importance no other cadet or similar group has done before, or will do since. Article is sourced only through use of the cadet group's website, and what has been written by a former member (possible conflict-of-interest) would be better suited for the aforementioned website. Delete. -- saberwyn 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Declared Interest. I have been a member of several cadet groups. I personally would be surprised and shocked to find a cadet organisation, of any branch of the military, which is 'notable' outside of the parent organisation. -- saberwyn 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Recurring dreams 11:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable per nom and Saberwyn. Orderinchaos 11:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator. A non notable organisation, on top of the other faults. Not sure my nominating statement was clear about my intention. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:NN per nominator - also per saberwyn's rationale.--VS talk 12:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all above. Lankiveil 12:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete Does not meet WP:N, WP:ORG. Needs to assert notability beyond "reputation for doing it differently", whatever that means (and it isn't explained).Garrie 23:21, 29 May 2007 (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.