Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/114 Squadron ATC

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. After padding with RAF information was removed, commenters were nearly unaninmous in the idea that individual scout troups are not notable. Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

114 Squadron ATC[edit]

Contested speedy. Another article on a local branch of the Air Training Corp (youth movement like the Boy Scouts for those outside the UK). No notability, although there has been attempt to pad the article with the history of the RAF 114 Squadron. Nuttah (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable cadet organisation. Although the Air Training Corps itself is notable individual squadrons have generally not been considered notable in past AfDs. I have removed the history of the RAF squadron as apart from the number it is not related. 22:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

~~Neutral.~~ I declined the speedy because the article appeared to assert notability through the history mentioned above by the nominator. Unless some source can be produced which substantiates that history I will suggest deletion. JodyB_talk 23:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this established youth group is notable. I also think their activites are covered in the local papers. But maybe I'm wrong? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the UK-RAF-ATC article. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been involved with many discussions about the notability of individual Scout Troops or other Scout units, and other individual youth organisation units. Only a very small fraction indeed are notability and the great majority of such articles are deleted or merged. This ATC does not even approach getting in the small fraction that should be kept. The very first ATC unit in the UK might get there, but this one does not.--Bduke (Discussion) 01:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inasmuch as there have been no further additions to the article and no sources to substantiate the original claims of notability. JodyB_talk 00:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very worthy organisation, but no need for separate articles on all of the different squadrons. Most of the detail / description already on the ATC page and the squad number is included in the list of ATC squads. Recommend the author try to contribute and improve the main ATC page instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual cadet units are almost never notable; this doesn't seem to be an exception. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2008 (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.