Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force ROTC Detachment 550
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. JForget 20:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Air Force ROTC Detachment 550 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local-level organization (ROTC unit) with no coverage in independent sources presented in the article. Its major claim of significance, winning Right of Line in 2004, is not even backed up by the linked page of the RPI article. Fails general notability, and I don't see a claim about the organization that meets WP:ORG. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete individual cadet units are not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no evidence that this meets WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the detachment by itself is probably not wiki-notable, although it could probably receive mention in a wider article about Air Force ROTC (if it is not already mentioned there). As it stands, the detachment has (according to the article) about 60 cadets, which means it is roughly equivalent in size to two platoons (not even a company, or maybe at a stretch we could call it a company-minus). As we have rarely in the past held companies to be notable without special circumstances and as this article does not provide enough sources to demonstrate these circumstances, for consistency I feel I must vote delete. Happy to change my vote if significant sources can be found and added to the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.