Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9th Carrier Air Group

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 redirect to List of Fleet Air Arm carrier air groups. Sandstein (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9th Carrier Air Group

9th Carrier Air Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

An article about a unit that never existed and therefore never participated in any military campaigns can hardly be notable. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete this not formed group need not be in a encyclopedia . failed in all search engines --Pearll's sun (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the reason outlined in the nomination. WilliamH (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete That it never existed isn't an issue, but I can't find anything at all about it. So not notable Hobit (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, assuming this is verifiable, it is certainly not notable, not even to the extent of a redirect to Operation Downfall. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just created List of Fleet Air Arm carrier air groups which will be a suitable redirect if this article is deleted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • comment well if this article is notable then a suitable redirect may be considered after merging the same with any existing ww2 article under a separate heading so this these non formed groups may be made available . wikipedia musnt go lack of any info . moreover if this article creator produces some notability then i might consider to change my opinion .--Pearll's sun (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've now done that for all the non-existent ones except the 9th, so it would seem logically at this juncture to REDIRECT the 9th as well. --SJK (talk) 07:41, 29 March 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.