Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. 213 Squadron Australian Air Force Cadets

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. If the author wishes to have the page userified so that they can retrieve their data for posting elsewhere, give me a ping on my talkpage. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. 213 Squadron Australian Air Force Cadets[edit]

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

Spam/vanity article, possibly by a paid or COI editor, about a microscopic and non-notable unit of Australia's Air Force. Fails all tests of notability; seems to be more of a bulletin board for bragging rights than anything else. Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The writer of this article literally "boasts" in the first sentence about this non-notable military training unit, displaying a conflict of interest and a lack of understanding of the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The literally boasting has been removed and more relevant history has been added, there have been more reliable sources references and this unit exists and has a growing history. Also not sure if you'd agree that the boasting is removed, but as linked in the referencing the Unit is known for it's acceptance rates into the Defence Force that's what the article referenced is about. Darcy.cartwright (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need reliable, independent sources. Both of the sources used in the article are publications of the Australian Air Force Cadets, are not independent, and are therefore useless for establishing notability on Wikipedia. Editor Darcy.cartwright is a new editor and a single purpose account working only on this article and to oppose its deletion. CFSGT D'Arcy Cartwright is mentioned in the article. You are welcome to edit here, Darcy.cartwright, but your writing must be about topics that are notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So would referencing another source make it notable? I have others, I just thought referencing the actual source would have been more reliable than a third party. I have references from CadetNet also however, I'm not sure on how to prove the accuracy of the unit's history if it's only been written by someone from the organisation? Also are we allowed to reference Facebook? Darcy.cartwright (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Please read the relevant pages such as Notability, General notability guideline, Reliable sources, Notability (organizations and companies) and Conflict of interest. Third party, independent sources are what we look for. If something hasn't been written about by someone reliable from outside the organization, then it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Facebook, amateur blogs and social media, self-published or user submitted sources are not permitted to be used to show notability on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A small unit of a larger program that does not seem to meet WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Have found multiple RSL and newspaper articles now, will they suffice? Darcy.cartwright (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless you can point those out. As far as I can see none are reliable and independent -- military newsletters, a boosterish parliamentary speech, etc. EEng (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but cadet units are simply not generally notable. Even regular military units below battalion size are rarely notable (this unit is barely of company size) and even battalions have been deleted in the past. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject simply isn't notable under the WP:GNG as it lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources. I say this without wishing to be discouraging as I can see that someone has clearly gone to a lot of trouble with this page, and it is a fairly neat and attractive article, however it simply isn't within our scope. Perhaps the author might find somewhere else on the internet for this? Anotherclown (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point which is rarely seen in AfD discussions. EEng (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is Wikipedia and not an argument I can bother myself with. Darcy.cartwright (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OrangeMike, who is, in fact, not a douche. CityO fSilver 23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC
Delete previous precedent it that individual cadet organisations are just not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)'[reply]
Comment. 68 likes of the group page on facebook, also has a few outside links of main organisation showing on google, however none are really focused on the group. Ray-Rays 20:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - individual cadet units have been deemed not notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as said above, small cadet units don't constitute a full article. Bodman456 (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2011 (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.