Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Force One

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 of the nomination was merge and redirect to Air transports of Heads of State. – Avi 14:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blair Force One

Primarily, this article is somewhat duplicated by the content in Air transports of Heads of State and No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF. It is also uncomfortably partisan to use this title, which was coined by the media and has no particular meaning. Also, the content is essentially news and any unique information not already covered in the other articles, plus Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Tony Blair, should really be placed in them, not in this branch article. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 09:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Concur entirely, probably fails WP:NEO too. --Richhoncho 10:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A perfectly reasonable article about an important subject of political debate. If the name is the big stumbling block, it can be changed, it alone shouldn't consign a good article to deletion. Erath 11:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge some content to No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF. Don't redirect. I totally agree with excellent nomination. Bwithh 11:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if necessary move to Air transports of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, although Blair Force One is the name used even by the Times and the BBC. The plans for new craft spread beyond 32 Squadron ("The Royal Family and government ministers do not always use No. 32 Squadron's planes, with both the Queen and Tony Blair recently using chartered British Airways jets, primarily for intercontinental travel."), and air transports of heads of state is merely a list; merging all this info there would unbalance the page. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge to the articles it largely duplicates: No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF and Air transports of Heads of State (which is not "just a list" ashas been asserted above). Casper Gutman 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if necessary move to Air transports of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and slap in a redirect, though this seems like the title that's far more likely to be searched for. This should definitely not be merged to No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF, as this aircraft's very purpose is to replace that squadron's connection with the royals and politicians. Once the name of the new fleet has been announced, this article will be moved. Vizjim 16:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename. And comments
    • Officially 32 Squadron's VIP/executive role is "secondary to its principal function of providing communications and logistical support for military operations, and that the Squadron's capacity should be based on military needs only." [1] That page should be maintained for the history of the squadron and brief overview of current role with a {{main}} link to main article.
    • Air transport of the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom is a very clumbsy title but then I can't think of anything better. Actually needs to be clumbsy as its important to note in title it has a dual Royal/executive use.
    • What's the problem with a redirect? It may be an unacceptable title for Wikipedia but it's a very commonly used term (BBC, Guardian, Times, Independent). It certainly needs to be mentioned in passing in the new article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark83 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 July 2006
  • Keep There's been a decent sized debate about this in the UK. I remember a lead editorial in the Telegraph about it, and the Guardian and BBC have, as stated above, covered it and used this title. I think this will be a useful resource when the debate comes up again in 2008, when the plane actually gets delivered. I'm not opposed to renaming and redirecting Blair Force One to a more encylcopedic title, but I do think at least having the redirect from Blair Force One is important. The article itself seems well written, encyclopedic, and likely to grow. Vickser 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge complete text and redirect. If the phrase is so widely used in the British media, I see no problem with a redirect to a subsection in No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF, but a new page seems like a stretch right now. HumbleGod 00:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly not a WP:NEO failure. It has considerable usage in major media outlets, eg the BBC, The Times (might have to searhc for Blair Force One), and even on Google, with inverted commas around it, it returns thousands of entries. It is a major topic of UK political discussion. In terms of the name, "POV" but popular names, as long as they are explaine properly, are acceptable; see, for example, Winter of Discontent. Batmanand | Talk 11:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment/clarify: Citing Google always really concerns me. The "thousands of entries" include an awful lot of duplicates, blogs (not acceptable under WP guidelines for external links, which puts them on dubious ground as references), and rebranded copies of Wikipedia itself. As for the ocurrences on reputable sources like the BBC, that's a fair point and indicates a reasonable level of public familiarity can be presumed. However, that does nothing to move us away from the problem that as an article title, it's too narrow, and lets down Wikipedia because it tries to be clever rather than trying to be informative. The discussion of politics (as opposed to concrete fact) is perfectly valid, but that's not the point here. The politics are not an article in themselves. I'd like to clarify my vote, since it's possibly lost since I nominated the deletion; in the light of this discussion it's a strong rename but not precluding a merge with the other relevant articles, such as that about the now defunct Queen's Flight. (i.e. the version of it prior to its becoming a redirect!) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand the concern with the Google test (it is a legitimate concern), but just glancing down the top twenty or thirty entires, only a few are blogs, and most are commerical UK newspapers. Just out of interest, if we move this article to UK executive transport or something like that, would people also like to move Winter of Discontent to 1978 UK Winter industrial troubles or something? Batmanand | Talk 13:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of becoming seen as a pedant, yes I would! ;-) It's also a paraphrase of a very famous phrase in Shakespeare, and as such I'd rather the article had a disambiguation page! – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment This "Blair Force One" will be not be operational until after Blair has ceased to be PM (assuming statements are correct), so the name is unlikely to survive. If the aircraft are used for shuttle diplomacy we'll also have to list, perhaps (and tongue-in-cheek), "Brown Farce One" or "Cameron Island Airways." Then it is periously close to having a category "Nicknames appended to governmental flights" It's not about should it be here, it's about how it should be here! --Richhoncho 09:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Slang titles are not usually the names of articles, see WP:NC. Move or merge to whatever is its official title, then redirect. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep until there's an official name, and then move. OK, "Blair Force One" doesn't sound encyclopaedic, but it's the only name we've got at the moment. --A bit iffy 14:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong rename to Air transport of the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom or UK executive transport since the current name is political and these aren't. "Blair Force One" can still be mentioned prominently in the article if it means so much to people. Daview 20:05, 9 July 2006 (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.