Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bomb Rack

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 no consensus. No prejudice to moving/merging should anyone want to do so. ansh 666 07:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Rack[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from this, which confirms that it exists, I can't find any other source for any of this. Unless there are more sources, it seems to fail WP:NMEDIA as not really important in any way and WP:GNG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to invoke WP:NMEDIA #2, but...especially without any available sourcing, this looks to be fairly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL when it comes to military units' internal periodicals. If it had been published during the war, there would probably be more on it, but as it is...move to Bomb Rack (periodical) (to avoid confusion with bomb rack) and redirect to Twentieth Air Force, merging any sourcable content to that article's history section and/or creating a new section for 'unit publications'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and why the heck does bomb rack redirect to bomb bay? the former exists inside the latter, but...to WT:AIR, away! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, only ran for two months. Not sure about merging though - the only source I have is one sentence on it in a book, which doesn't seem enough to include in the twentieth air force article. Maybe one sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some sourcing - armyaircorpsmuseum collection, [1], Andersen’s newspaper a 60-year tradition.Icewhiz (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The second one provides some sourcing which allows to be merged with sourceable content I reckon. But only has 1.5 paragraphs on bomb rack itself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 2 of media notability. Of historical value. I found some coverage in Foreign Service. Here's an issue of the magazine on Ebay. Might be okay to merge to a broader history of this type of publication if / when one is written. Rename as per above. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FloridaArmy Being a past newspaper doesn't mean it is of historic value - it only existed for a few months and didn't have much impact. Being on ebay doesn't mean much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:01, 7 December 2017 (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.