Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force Regulation 200-2

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 transfer to Wikisource. east.718 at 19:36, 11/4/2007

[edit] Air Force Regulation 200-2

Air Force Regulation 200-2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Was tagged as "speedy delete as nonsense" and "hoax". The page may or may not be true, but it does not look like nonsense. In the 1950's they did not know what we know now about UFO's. The reference http://www.cufon.org/cufon/afr200-2.htm exists. Anthony Appleyard 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic even if it's correct. JJL 12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. Obviously needs to be confirmed but this is consistent with what I've read in the past about US military planning for alien encounters, which was real if (given what we know) something of a waste of time. I don't know that this is notable enough on its own for an article, but it certainly can be a source for our existing articles. --Dhartung | Talk 13:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep First it gets tagged as nonsense (it isn't), then it gets tagged as hoax by the same person (it isn't. I can cite it). If you have any suggestions on how to improve my first article on Wikipedia, then I'd be happy to hear them. But not just place the speedy deltion tag on it. I created the article mainly because it is noted in the Unidentified flying object article. Since Air Force Regulation 200-2 was wikilinked but had no article, I decided to start one. I think this article should be kept, otherwise nobody knows what this regulation is all about. my two cents UserDoe 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment an encyclopedia aticle about a document is about its significance, how it came about, criticisms of it, etc., not just a reproduction of the document itself. See e.g. Canadian Bill of Rights, Treaty of Versailles. This is a less momentous document but the idea still applies. Good luck! JJL 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource... for now. I am the one who originally put the speedy deletion tag, and I am okay with that. If the author can show that this regulation does indeed come from the US Air Force, then there is no reason why it shouldn't stay in Wikisource permanently. --Blanchardb 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource per Blanchardb and UserDoe's proof-of-it-being-a-real-USAF-reg. Buckshot06 22:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwikify as it is now. If there are reliable sources that discuss this document, there could be an article with this title in the future, but in its current form it's just an extended summary of the actual document. Wikisource seems the perfect location for this. --barneca (talk) 00:21, 30 October 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.