Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAF kills post-World War II

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 merge to History of the Royal Air Force. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RAF kills post-World War II[edit]

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

I'm no crab but this article was obviously started with the intention of being a POV fork.[1] It reminded me of a statement made by Sharkey Ward, a bitter RN pilot in the inter-service rivalry. A merge tag was placed, however no discussion was actually started. I also recognise that Hohum has done very good work to try and "neutralise" the article. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about what the RAF hasn't done? How bizarre (and more importantly, how unencyclopedic). -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep, if it was moved to Air-to-air combat history of the RAF it would be more encyclopedic. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to a relevant, established article, preference for the former. (Hohum ^@) 20:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of the RAF. The article notes that the RAF shot down two Egyptian planes in 1948, and a couple of their own RAF planes since. 62 years without one of their planes shooting down an enemy plane seems worth mentioning, either here or in the article on the RAF, to balance the POV assertions of "great success" post WW2 period in the target merge article. Edison (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Request. Edison, if you could point out (on the article talk page) which elements of the current History of the RAF article you see as being POV, that would be of use. Greenshed (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOne wonders how many planes shot down in air to air combat could be claimed, post-WW2, by the air forces of France, Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Japan or any other country prominent in WW2 air combat. A score card for all countries would be an interesting and referenceable article. Edison (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much better than trivia Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to History of the RAF. The RAF's post WW2 air to air combat might be mentioned as applicable in the appropriate section heading in the History of the RAF article. More generally, while recognizing the good attempts at NPOVing so far (which has only been partially successful), if any of this article were to stand on its own it might be presented in a wider post WW2 air power analysis (covering such topics as whether air superiority was gained and the RAF's role within joint or coalition air operations). Greenshed (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mess of ideas and NPOV problems, anything relevant should be in History of the RAF but most of it is not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some detail now added to History of the RAF article. Greenshed (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge as suggested above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to History of the RAF. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there anything more from RAF kills post-World War II that editors want to see added to the History of the RAF article? Greenshed (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2010 (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.